2013 (6) TMI 182 - HC - Customs

CHA - suspension or revocation - whether the Chief Commissioner of Customs can interfere with a quasi-judicial exercise of power on Administrative side. - held that - authority is not conferred upon the Chief Commissioner when a quasi judicial order is passed under Regulation No. 20 r/w. Regulation 22 by a Commissioner. The Chief Commissioner could have interfered with it only if he had an express authority due to a particular Regulation or a provision of law. Unless such provision or Regulation of law is pointed out to this Court, the order dated 12-10-2010 cannot be said to have any judicial existence and it cannot be implemented.

Summary

Issues:
1. Implementation of the order dated 12-10-2010 passed by the Chief Commissioner of Customs.
2. Authority of the Chief Commissioner to interfere with a quasi-judicial exercise of power on the administrative side.
3. Validity of the order dated 12-10-2010 under the Regulations of 2004 and the Customs Act.
4. Time limit stipulated in Regulation No. 22 for suspension of license.
5. Challenge to the order dated 3-9-2010.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought the implementation of the order dated 12-10-2010, which canceled the earlier order suspending their license. The Chief Commissioner relied on Regulation 20(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, and Section 5(2) of the Customs Act for this decision, which was deemed as an administrative action by the petitioner's counsel.

2. A preliminary objection was raised regarding the Chief Commissioner's authority to interfere with quasi-judicial powers administratively. The court found that the Chief Commissioner lacked the authority to intervene in a quasi-judicial order passed by a Commissioner unless explicitly provided in the regulations or the law.

3. The validity of the order dated 12-10-2010 was questioned, with the petitioner arguing that the Chief Commissioner had no legal basis for the decision. The court noted that without specific authorization in the Regulations of 2004 or the Customs Act, the Chief Commissioner's order lacked judicial existence and could not be enforced.

4. Regarding the time limit for suspension under Regulation No. 22, the petitioner contended that the events leading to the suspension were beyond the stipulated time limit, rendering the order dated 3-9-2010 invalid and unsustainable.

5. The challenge to the order dated 3-9-2010 was addressed, noting that the issue had already been covered in a previous court order dated 4-10-2010. The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue further legal remedies, leading to the disposal of the present petition without any costs.