2023 (5) TMI 345 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Appellate remedy available to Revenue - Commissioner of Customs to act as Licensing authority and / or administrative exercise of power - Quantum of punishment - Breach of obligation on the part of Customs House Agent (CHA) - Licensing authority decided that the lesser of the two penalties would suffice - Penalty of forfeiture a security deposit of CHA - association with certain operators in the misuse of ‘import export code (IEC)’ for import of heavily undervalued goods - HELD THAT:- In COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL) , MUMBAI VERSUS MUKADAM FREIGHT SYSTEMS PVT LTD [2017 (5) TMI 798 - CESTAT MUMBAI], the Tribunal, on consideration of the special law that section 146 of Customs Act, 1962 is and the legislative intent therein while designating the Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC) as the authority to frame appropriate Regulations, independent of the general power conferred elsewhere, held that As the sovereign Legislature has specifically empowered a separate appellate structure, the intent to deny the replication of the normal appellate remedy to the disciplinary authority against its own order is emphatic. We cannot countenance reading down the general provisions of review and appeal to apply to dropping of disciplinary proceedings against customs house agents in the face of specific and deliberate non-inclusion of such contingency in Section 146 of Customs Act, 1962 and the Regulations framed thereunder.

It cannot be understood that the appellant-Commission is before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay against the order of the Tribunal in re Mukadam Freight Systems Pvt Ltd; however, to suggest that the Learned Authorised Representative argue by relying on what, probably, are grounds of appeal there the proposition that the Tribunal was in error, even as that is pending, is ‘courage’ of sorts in demonstrating, as well as instigating, lack of judicial discipline. It would also appear that the appellant-Commissioner has also not grasped the essential difference between an adjudicatory and administrative exercise of power.

As an adjudicating authority, the Commissioner of Customs weighs the submissions of an assessee visà- vis the interests of the State expressed in legislative enactment; ultimately, it is the detriment to the State that is, statutorily, scrutinized by the reviewing authority and, thus, the empowerment of an authority higher than the adjudicator being designated to pursue appellate remedies that it cannot administratively interfere in - it is inappropriate for the appellant - Commissioner to claim that, despite the ruling on lack of jurisdiction vested in the Committee of Chief Commissioners to direct appeal against orders of the licensing authority, the merit of the present appeal should be considered as though in challenge to an ‘adjudication order’ under Customs Act, 1962.

There are no reason to entertain this appeal - appeal dismissed.