TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 729X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ural justice or beyond his jurisdiction in order to interfere with impugned order Therefore, in view of existence of the aforesaid alternative remedy, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ application fails and is dismissed. – Decided against the petitioner. - Writ Petition No. 28921 of 2014 And M.P.No.1 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 15-7-2015 - The Honourable Mr. Justice S. Vaidyanathan,J. For the Petitioner : Mr. Hari Radhakrishnan For the Respondents : Mr. T. Chandrasekaran, SCGSC ORDER The case of the petitioner in the writ petition in brief, as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, is that the petitioner is a licensed Custom House Agent holding license bearing No.R-243. Ever since the grant of the said license to them, the petitioner has been efficiently transacting the business with unblemished record. In the course of their business, the petitioner had acted as a customs broker of various imports such as M/s.Lucky International, Chennai, M/s.Kannan Printing Solutions, Melmaravauthur, who had imported PVC flex banners from Malaysia. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein, it is stated that Directorate of Revenue Intelligenced (DRI), Chennai made an investigation of a case of import of PVC flex banners by mis-declaring the goods to evade anti-dumping duty and came to the notice that M/s.DVR Frieght Forwarders Pvt.Ltd. had acted as Customs Broker and had facilitated clearance of PVC flex banners imported by M/s.Jeyam Impex and four other units. During the investigation, certain irregularities were found, viz., that the Director of the petitioner being the holder of the customs brokers license, encouraged his relatives and friends and obtained IECs in their names and provided those IECs to one Kamalesh Jain of M/s.J.K.Enterprises to import PVC flex banners for monetary consideration for the IEC holders with an intention to get more business for himself; that the customs broker facilitated clearance of PVC flex banner consignments imported by Sailesh Jain using the IECs of M/s.Anupam Enterprises and three other units knowing very well that those consignments were not imported by the actual IEC holders; that the customs broker obtained the documents related to the said imports from Shri Sailesh Jain of M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CBLR, 2013) In view of the above, it was found that a clear prima facie case exists against the Customs Broker M/s. DVR Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner herein and if the Customs Broker is allowed to continue to operate it would be detrimental to the interest of revenue and, therefore, it was necessary to take immediate action against the said Customs Broker, to prevent them from further mis-use of their license. Hence, for the above mentioned violations, license of the said Customs Broker was suspended vide order dated 18.11.2013 under Regulation 19(1) of the CBLR, 2013 and to follow the principles of natural justice, a personal hearing was granted to the Customs Broker on 28.11.2013 under Regulation 19(2) of the CBLR, 2013. 5. After going through the facts of the case and submissions made by the counsel of the Customs Broker during personal hearing and in his written submissions, it is found that Customs Broker has made general arguments against the suspension order and not submitted any evidence to show that they had acted in a bonafide manner as a Customs Broker. Hence, it was found that the Customs Broker had failed to fulfill the condition of the Bond exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner of Customs against the findings of the Enquiry Officer under Regulation 20(6) of CBLR, 2013. Having considered the report of the Enquiry Officer and the final representation made by the petitioner, the first respondent, in exercise of his powers conferred under Regulation 20(7) of the CBLR, 2013, by proceedings, dated 20.10.2014 has revoked the licence and also ordered for forfeiture of the security deposit. Therefore, it is stated that after conducting a full-fledged enquiry by following the principles of natural justice in providing personal hearing and since the charges were found proved against the petitioner, the impugned order has been rightly passed by the first respondent, which needs no interference. With these averments, the respondents sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned senior Central Government standing counsel for the respondents and perused the entire records. 9. The case of the respondents is that Shri Saravana Kumar was very well aware of the fact that the goods were actually imported by Shri Sailesh in the name of various IEC holders and if he is prudent and law abiding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms broker is premature and it did not give an impression that the customs broker would get an effective opportunity to rebut the allegation contained in the show cause notice and prove innocence. In this regard, the learned counsel relied upon a decision report in Oryx Fisheries Pvt.Ltd. versus Union of India and a Division Bench decision of Bombay High Court in GAC Shipping (India) Pvt.Ltd. versus The Union of India in W.P.No.1586 of 2014 in support of his contention that impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the proceedings against the importer is pending and no final adjudication has taken place as against the importer. He pointed out that in the present case, even no show cause notice has been issued to the importer alleging that they had mis-declared the country origin to evade anti-dumping duty. The learned counsel also contended that lending/misusing the IE Code is not an offence under the Customs Act and therefore, even assuming that the petitioner facilitated the misuse of the IE Code, the first respondent has no jurisdiction to suspend the petitioner s licence. He relied upon a decision in Hamid Fahim Ansari versus C.C.(I) reported in 2009 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a settled principle of law that the writ Court is not certainly sitting in appeal over each and every order passed by the statutory authority. The task of the writ Court to examine the decision-making process was found in the decision reported in State of UP versus Maharaja Dharmedar Prasad Singh reported in AIR 1989 SC 997. The writ Court is averse to interfere with the acts and actions of the statutory authorities unless those are beyond jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction. The Writ Court will certainly interfere if the impugned orders are contrary to the principles of natural justice causing effect manifest injustice. Unless those ingredients are present, the Writ Court will be slow to interfere in the matter. In the present case, I do not find that the first respondent acted contrary to the principles of natural justice or beyond his jurisdiction in order to interfere with the impugned order. 14. The power underArticle 226of the Constitution of India is an extraordinary power and should be exercised by the High Courts only in those cases where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
