TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order of the Chennai Commissionerate prohibiting the appellant from operating within the area of Chennai Commissionerate, cannot continue indefinitely - Held that:- it appears that the order of the Licensing Authority holding the appellant guilty of violation and imposing a penalty has been challenged by the appellant before the Tribunal. So long as that order remains final, the finding that there was violation, also remains. Therefore, the appellant can seek a review of an order of prohibition only if the finding recorded by the Cochin Commissionerate that there was a violation, is ultimately set aside. - Decided against the appellant - Writ Appeal No. 13 of 2016, C. M. P. No. 832 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 22-2-2016 - V. Ramasubramanian A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibiting the appellant from working in any section of Chennai Customs Commissionerate and Customs Stations under the jurisdiction of Chennai Customs Zone. 7. Therefore, the appellant came up with a writ petition in W.P.No.19670 of 2013 as against the prohibition order dated 12.7.2013. The said writ petition was disposed of on 24.9.2013, giving liberty to the appellant to submit a representation against the prohibition order. It was at that stage, a show cause notice dated 24.10.2013 was issued by the Cochin Commissionerate. 8. After considering the representation of the appellant, the Chennai Commissionerate passed an order dated 12.11.2013, directing continuation of the prohibition of the appellant, with a rider that a final decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esulted only in the imposition of a penalty of ₹ 10,000/-, the order of the Chennai Commissionerate prohibiting the appellant from operating within the area of Chennai Commissionerate, cannot continue indefinitely. The Commissioner of Customs, Cochin was the Licencing Authority and once he had passed final order under Regulation 22 of the Regulations, imposing a mere penalty, the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai cannot, according to the appellant, impose a greater penalty by invoking the power under Regulation 22 of the Regulations. 13. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the decision of the Kerala High Court in Ujwal International Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kochi [2015 (3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms Broker liable to penalty upto ₹ 50,000/-, in case he contravenes any provisions of the Regulations or fails to comply with any provisions contained in the Regulations, despite the fact that Regulation 18 itself speaks about the penalty and Regulation 20 lays down the procedure for imposition of penalty. 18. Similarly, Regulation 23 speaks about the power of the Commissioner of Customs to prohibit a Customs Broker from working in any one or more sections of the Customs Station, under certain circumstances, despite the fact that Regulation 19 deals with the suspension of licence independently. 19. Therefore, it must be remembered that any interpretation to be given to Regulation 22, should be in tune with the object sought to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that section or sections. 21. A careful look at Regulations 19 and 23 would show that what is contemplated under Regulation 19 is the suspension of a licence, in contemplation of or pending inquiry into the alleged violations committed by a Customs Broker. As a consequence, the order of suspension passed under Regulation 19 would naturally be co-terminus with a final order passed under Regulation 20. Additionally, the Customs Broker can be prohibited from exercising any of the rights conferred upon him in the licence, once an order of suspension is passed under Regulation 19. 22. In contrast, what is sought to be prohibited under Regulation 23, is only limited in nature. An order passed under Regulation 23 will prohibi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, the decision of the High Court of Kerala, with great respect, cannot be accepted. 25. Both the decisions of the Mumbai Bench of the CESTAT, have also fallen into the same track. The Tribunal has also understood the scope of the power under Regulation 23 to be lesser than or at least equivalent to the power of suspension under Regulation 19. 26. The issue can be looked at from another angle also. Suppose the order of prohibition under Regulation 23 can be invoked only in contemplation of an inquiry or during the pendency of an inquiry, there is no necessity to have Regulation 23 at all. If the interpretation given to the power under Regulation 23 is to be the same as the interpretation to be given to Regulation 19, then the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
