TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants had filed an appeal only against the first order dated 26.09.2017, it could even be done so at this stage with an application for condonation of delay which would have been considered as per the procedure. Regulation 23 is a provision to take immediate action against a Customs Broker on whom there is a reasonable belief of having fallen foul of the CBLR Regulations. The Regulation however allows the competent authority to prohibit the customs broker to function only at one or more sections of the customs station. Surely, this prohibition cannot be extended to all the sections and all the Customs Commissionerates in the Customs station, as has been done in the present case. Continuation of prohibition under Regulation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Chennai Customs station under the jurisdiction of Chennai Customs Zone with immediate effect. Personal hearing was granted to the appellant on 03.10.2017. Pursuant to the personal hearing, vide order dated 26.02.2018, the Commissioner of Customs ordered continuation of prohibition of the licence of the appellants until further orders. Aggrieved, appellant filed appeal before this forum. 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellant, Ld. Counsel Shri A.K. Jayaraj made number of submissions which can be broadly summarized as under:- a. The order of Continuation of Prohibition of CB Licence making it inoperable has been passed without proper appreciation of the facts of the case. b. The order has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. e. Even though one of the grounds for alleged issuance of prohibition order is that the appellant did not verify the IEC code of the exporter the goods have been provisionally released to the very same exporter, which would show that there has been no latches on the part of the appellant to verify the IEC code. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. AR, Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC, reiterated the findings in the impugned order. Ld. AR put forward technical grounds stating that the appeal itself is not maintainable as the appellant has not challenged the first prohibition order dated 26.09.2017 and the appeal is filed against the order dated 26.02.2018, which is only a continuing prohibition orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order of continuation of prohibition dated 26.02.2018 cannot be said to have any independent existence and can be best construed as an addendum or a part and parcel of the first order dated 26.09.2017. 6.2 At this point, it would be appropriate to reproduce Regulation 23 of CBLR 2013 as under:- 23. Prohibition- Notwithstanding anything contained in these regulations, the Commissioner of Customs may prohibit any Customs Broker from working in one or more sections of the Customs Station, if he is satisfied that such Customs Broker has not fulfilled his obligations as laid down under regulation 11 in relation to work in that section or sections. 6.3 Discernably, Regulation 23 is a provision to take immediate action agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prohibition on 26.02.2018. If this is not unbridled abuse of an otherwise benign provision in the CBLR Regulation, then what is? 6.4 We also find merit in the Ld. Counsel s contention that while there is a narration in para-5 of the impugned order that proceedings have been initiated against the appellant because none of the exporters came to the DIU, in the very next paras it is clearly indicated that the representatives of both the exporters had appeared before the Customs Departmental officers on 10.08.2017. It is also interesting to note, from para-15 of the impugned order, that even after all these investigations and the preliminary finding that the goods were of inferior quality as per the Textile Committee etc., provisional releas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
