TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 643X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ucting an enquiry as required to be done under the Regulations by following the procedure contemplated under Regulation 22(2) to 22(7). The CESTAT, rightly set aside the order of suspension and such orders were confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, it would be wholly untenable on the part of the respondent to state that they will once again rely on the unsubstantiated allegations for refusing to renew the petitioner's licence. No person can be vexed twice on the same set of facts, which remain unsubstantiated. Therefore, on the allegations set out in the impugned order, the petitioners' applications for renewal of licence could not have been rejected. However, it is a different matter, if there are any other allegations duly substantiated, then the authority while considering the applications for renewal can exercise jurisdiction and while doing so, should strictly adhere to the procedure under CBLR. Petition allowed - matter remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration with a direction to consider the petitioners' applications for renewal of customs broker licence - decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P.Nos.27499 & 27500 of 2016 - - - Date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, (hereinafter referred to as Act ) against the order dated 23.05.2012, continuing the order of suspension. Pursuant to which, the petitioners filed appeal before the CESTAT, and the CESTAT allowed the Appeals, by order dated 12.11.2013. This was challenged by the respondent by filing Civil Miscellaneous Appeals in CMA.Nos.1423 1424 of 2014, which were heard by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, and by judgment, dated 27.06.2014, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. Thus, the order of suspension passed on 25.04.2012, continued further by order dated 23.05.2012, were set aside. In the mean time, the petitioners' customs broker licence were due to expire and therefore, the petitioners submitted applications for renewal of licence on 23.12.2014 and 06.08.2014, respectively, since by then CBLR came into force, the applications had to be considered, in terms of the new Regulation. These applications have been rejected by orders dated 01.04.2016 and 08.04.2016, respectively, which are impugned in these Writ Petitions. 7. The dispute in the instant cases lies in a very narrow compass. The petitioners' case is that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs to enquire and despite a direction of this Court in its order dated 02.07.2012, to follow the procedure under Regulation 22(2), no notice was issued to the petitioner till the date of consideration of the appeals by the CESTAT. After referring to various decisions of the CESTAT in other similar matters, it was observed that for the purpose of enquiry under Regulation 22 of CHALR, issuing a show cause notice is a pre-requisite condition. By taking note of a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Falcon Air Cargo and Travels (P) Ltd., vs. UOI reported in 2002 (140) ELT 3 (Del), it was held that when no notice was issued even for two years, the order of suspension cannot be sustained. On a perusal of the impugned orders in these Writ Petitions, it is seen that there are six allegations made against the petitioners alleging violation of Regulation 11(a),(b),(d),(e) and 17(6), 16 of the CBLR, what is interesting to note is that these were the very same allegations based on which the order of suspension was passed on 25.04.2012. In terms of Regulation 22, the procedure for suspension or revocation of licence under Regula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the findings of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs. (7) The Commissioner of Customs shall, after considering the report of the inquiry and the representation thereon, if any, made by the Customs House Agent, pass such orders as he deems fit. (8) Any Customs House Agent aggrieved by any decision or order passed under regulation 20 or sub-regulation (7) of regulation 22, may prefer an appeal under section 129A of the Act to the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal established under sub-section (1) of section 129 of the Act. 11. The respondents had complied with the procedure under Regulation 22(1) and placed the petitioners' licences under suspension with immediate effect. When these orders of immediate suspension was put to challenge by filing Writ Petitions, the Court directed the respondent to follow the procedure under Regulation 22(2). This was not followed resultantly the orders of continuation of suspension dated 23.05.2012 were quashed by the CESTAT. Thus, the allegations, which were the basis for suspending the licence continuous to remain as an allegation and has not been substantiated by the D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
