9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 598X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5) E.L.T. 162 (Tri. - Mumbai)] violates the petitioner's fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It is also violative of the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner was granted Customs House Agent Brokers License by the Commissioner of Customs, Kanpur. The petitioner is also permitted to work at Mumbai Customs Commissionerate. 3. A bill of entry was filed by the petitioner on behalf of the importer M/s. R.N. Trading for clearance of assorted soft drinks, chocolates, baked beans, vinegar, etc. A bill of entry was registered on 8th November, 2013 and was presented for examination on 11th November, 2013 by the employee of the petitioner al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... val contentions, we hold that there is no serious charges against the appellant, nor there is any alleged loss of the revenue and nor any reasons have been stated in the impugned order requiring prohibition of the appellantCustoms Broker for carrying on his business in the Mumbai Customs Commissionerate and accordingly, we set aside the impugned order. The appellantCustoms Broker shall be entitled to carry on their work as Customs Broker with immediate effect." It is relying upon these observations, that it is contended before us that the petitioner must be allowed to carry on his business and in terms of the license. 5. On the earlier occasion, after hearing both sides, we found that this order of the Tribunal has been cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te submits that the petitioner is suffering, though he has favourable order in terms of the Tribunal's direction dated 27th March, 2015. Once the Tribunal has concluded that there is no prima facie case, then, the prohibitory order should not be continued. 10. We do not wish to go into any wider question or controversy. A power to suspend or prohibiting the use of the licence has not been questioned in the present proceedings. It is only the continued prohibition which is questioned by urging that the Tribunal's order is not implemented. However, we find that an appeal was entertained by this Court and admitted challenging that order. Further, from 20th January, 2015, until 27th March, 2015, the prohibitory order is in force. Despite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
