Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 487 - AT - CustomsForfeiture of security deposit - ban on operation as ‘authorized courier’ - HELD THAT:- The Regulations are not framed under any special authority or law but is a procedure notified under the general powers vested in section 157 of Customs Act, 1962; the opportunity for representing to the Chief Commissioner of Customs against any penalty does not foreclose recourse to the appellate jurisdiction in section 129 of Customs Act, 1962. The respondent has invoked the power to suspend under regulation 14 of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1992. Implicit in this invoking is the lack of prima facie justification for establishing one of the grounds that could lead to revocation of registration, and/or forfeiture of security, as enumerated in the said Regulation. A lack at the stage of suspension cannot be filled at the stage of notice without the inquiry mandated in the power to suspend. It can only be deduced that the notice, as well as the detriments, have been proceeded with despite this lack. Consequently, the de-registration and forfeiture lack the authority of law. Eternity is accepted only in matters of faith. No statute can, or should, arrogate such and we do not find such in the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998. Yet the respondent has taken it upon himself to resort to banning operation for all time to come which is not a jurisdiction that is permissible to be invoked under Regulations. It is tantamount to interference with exercise of regulation 10 of Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulation, 1988 which is not within the scope of notice issued to the appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|