TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... action in terms of Regulation No. 20 and/or 22 of the Regulations. According to the respondent, the order should have read as Regulations 19 & 20 and not Regulations 20 & 22 and it is a typographical error - Be that as it may, the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai is not an order empowering the respondent to initiate action under the Regulations. The power to suspend a Customs Broker Licence is conferred on the respondent in terms of the Regulations. Therefore, even if the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, has not referred to any of the provisions of the Regulations, yet, the respondent was well within his jurisdiction to exercise all powers under the Regulations. Therefore, quoting of Regulation No. 20 or 22 is of no consequence and that can hardly be a ground to test the correctness of the impugned order. Therefore, such contention raised by the petitioner stands rejected. The dismissal of one of the employees of the petitioner does not grant immunity to the petitioner from the alleged offence and that the order suspending the petitioner’s Customs Broker Licence was passed on 5-5-2016, immediately after the order of the Principal Commissioner of Cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tunity of personal hearing was granted in terms of Regulation 19(2). The petitioner appeared for the personal hearing and filed their written submissions. The respondent has passed the order dated 30-5-2016, continuing the suspension of the petitioner s Customs Broker Licence until further orders. This order is impugned in W.P. No. 19312 of 2016. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, while forwarding his order dated 13-4-2016 to the respondent for necessary action in terms of Regulation 20 and/or 21 of the Regulations, but the respondent erroneously passed an order dated 5-5-2016. under Section 19(1), which is impugned in W.P. No. 19313 of 2016, was subsequently, confirmed by order dated 30-5-2016, impugned in W.P. No. 19312 of 2016. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned orders are not tenable. It is further submitted that the respondent while passing the impugned order in Paragraph 16 therein, erred in making an observation that there is an typographical error in the order passed by the Principal Commissioner, Mumbai that instead of mentioning Regulation Nos. 19 20, it has been mentioned as Reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al) v. Worldwide Cargo Movers., reported in 2010 (253) E.L.T. 190 (Bom.); and the decision of the Hon ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Cappithan Agencies v. The Commissioner of Customs, in W.A. No. 13 of 2016, dated 22-2-2016 [2016 (336) E.L.T. 524 (Mad.)], and in the case of D.V.R., Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Cus. (Imports), Chennai, reported in 2015 (326) E.L.T. 108 (Mad.). The learned counsel also referred to a recent decision of the High Court of Calcutta in the case of Aditya Ganguly v. UOI Ors., reported in 2016-TIOL-876-HC-KOL-CUS = 2016 (337) E.L.T. 54 (Cal.). 5. Heard Mr. N. Viswanathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. V. Sundareswaran, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials placed on record. 6. The order impugned in these writ petitions are orders suspending the petitioner s Customs Broker Licence. The respondent invoked its power under Regulation 19(1) and placed the petitioner s licence under suspension, thereafter offered an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner in terms of Regulation 19(2) and confirmed the order of suspension. These orders ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order cannot be tested on the ground of limitation. 11. A close reading of Regulation 19 would show that notwithstanding the power of revocation of licence or imposition of penalty under Regulation No. 18, the Commissioner of Customs may in appropriate cases, where immediate action is necessary, suspend the licence of a Customs Broker, where an enquiry against such agent is pending or contemplated. Admitting an enquiry is pending against the petitioner. Therefore, in the exercise of the discretion conferred on the Commissioner of Customs, the respondent has invoked his power and placed the petitioner s licence under suspension, in such circumstances should this Court interfere with exercise of such discretion. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision in the case of N.C. Singha Sons v. UOI (supra), and submitted that the minimum that is required by the Commissioner to enable him to exercise such power of immediate suspension, is the spelling out of the circumstances in the order warranting the need to take such immediate action and actually say that immediate action is indeed required in the matter. On facts, in the said case, the Court found that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsideration of the written submissions made by the petitioner pointed out that the dismissal of one of the employees of the petitioner does not grant immunity to the petitioner from the alleged offence and that the order suspending the petitioner s Customs Broker Licence was passed on 5-5-2016, immediately after the order of the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai was received by the office of the respondent on 22-4-2016. Further, the respondent has rightly distinguished the decisions referred to by the petitioner in the case of the Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Ors. v. A.M. Ahmed Co., in W.A. No. 371 of 2015, dated 17-6-2015, stating that the order which has been passed against the petitioner is an order suspending the licence and it is not a notice under Regulation No. 20. The order impugned is a speaking order and no error can be attributed to the same. The reasons assigned are cogent and therefore, this Court does not propose to interfere with the exercise of the power of licensing authority under Regulation No. 19. 15. In the light of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with a direction to the respondent to initiate further action in terms of Regulation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
