TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal, on consideration of the special law that section 146 of Customs Act, 1962 is and the legislative intent therein while designating the Central Board of Excise Customs (CBEC) as the authority to frame appropriate Regulations, independent of the general power conferred elsewhere, held that As the sovereign Legislature has specifically empowered a separate appellate structure, the intent to deny the replication of the normal appellate remedy to the disciplinary authority against its own order is emphatic. We cannot countenance reading down the general provisions of review and appeal to apply to dropping of disciplinary proceedings against customs house agents in the face of specific and deliberate non-inclusion of such contingency ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are no reason to entertain this appeal - appeal dismissed. - CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 89130 OF 2013 - FINAL ORDER NO. A/ 85520 /2023 - Dated:- 20-3-2023 - HON BLE MR C J MATHEW , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) And HON BLE MR AJAY SHARMA , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) Shri Ram Kumar , Assistant Commissioner ( AR ) for the appellant Shri Anil Balani , Advocate for the respondent ORDER PER : C J MATHEW This appeal of Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai, against his own order [order no. 78/2013/CAC/CC (G)/PKA/CHA (Admn) dated 13th June 2013] restricting the penalty under Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations (CHALR), 2004 to forfeiture of security deposit and consequent replenishment thereof, in proceedings initiated und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enquiry report, held that three of the four charges were proved and that forfeiture of security deposit would suffice in the circumstances. Among the charges framed in the proceedings, that of the respondent alleged to have transferred the license was held to be unsubstantiated. Neither the appeal nor the contention of Learned Authorised Representative suggests that the finding on this charge is incorrect. It is also seen from the contents of the appeal that the findings in the impugned order have not been controverted but that the Committee of Chief Commissioners appears to be aggrieved only by the evaluation of the licensing authority that the lesser of the two penalties would suffice. Simply put, the appeal desires us to intervene in an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oms. That authority is, therefore, the master to whom the agent owes its existence. It is the Commissioner of Customs who is responsible for the operation and functioning of the Customs House and any detriment to efficient functioning of the Customs House will ultimately reflect on that authority. There is no other authority more concerned with weeding out of unacceptable elements and, therefore, there is no cause for any other authority to sit in judgment on the decision of a Commissioner that continued operation of licensee is detrimental to the functioning of the Customs House. 12. It cannot be said that revenue collection stands on that very footing. Levy of duties and the intent of the law relating to collection of revenue flow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellate mechanism distinct from that enacted by the sovereign Legislature in the Customs Act, 1962 and the Regulation framing authority has, in accord with the wisdom of generations, entitled only the licensee to appeal. As the sovereign Legislature has specifically empowered a separate appellate structure, the intent to deny the replication of the normal appellate remedy to the disciplinary authority against its own order is emphatic. We cannot countenance reading down the general provisions of review and appeal to apply to dropping of disciplinary proceedings against customs house agents in the face of specific and deliberate non-inclusion of such contingency in Section 146 of Customs Act, 1962 and the Regulations framed thereunder. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rence between an adjudicatory and administrative exercise of power. As an adjudicating authority, the Commissioner of Customs weighs the submissions of an assessee vis - vis the interests of the State expressed in legislative enactment; ultimately, it is the detriment to the State that is, statutorily, scrutinized by the reviewing authority and, thus, the empowerment of an authority higher than the adjudicator being designated to pursue appellate remedies that it cannot administratively interfere in. On the contrary, in administration of the licensing regime, the Commissioner of Customs, as the creator of license, determines the continued existence of such creation; the weighment in proceedings under the Regulation is that of the interest o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
