2014 (1) TMI 583 - AT - Customs

Stay application - Prohibition to transact business - Two employees of the appellant who are H Card holders and working for the assessee Custom House Agent indulged in illegal export of Red Sanders - Whether decision passed by Commissioner administrative or appealable order - Held that - unable to appreciate how a decision which was an administrative decision earlier becomes an appealable order just because of another order is passed in terms of the directions of the Hon ble High Court requiring the Commissioner to consider the representation giving opportunity to the appellant to present their case and to pass an order. Under these circumstances, I am unable to consider the stay application, since the appeal itself in not maintainable - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs to prohibit a Custom House Agent from performing functions.
2. Appealability of the Commissioner's decision as an administrative order.
3. Interpretation of Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding appealability.

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs
The appellant, a Custom House Agent, challenged the Commissioner of Customs' order prohibiting them from transacting business at Pipavav Port due to employees' involvement in illegal export. The appellant argued that the Commissioner exceeded jurisdiction under Regulation 21 by barring all functions at Pipavav. They contended that the employees acted independently, not during employment, and the Commissioner's decision was premature as the parent authority hadn't taken action. The appellant highlighted the absence of prior judicial precedents on such matters and raised concerns about the impact on their ability to operate. However, the Commissioner maintained that the decision was within regulatory powers and not appealable, citing the case of M/s. Rajendra Purohit where a similar order was deemed administrative and dismissed. Despite arguments for appealability based on High Court directions, the Commissioner rejected the appeal, stating that the administrative nature of the decision remained unchanged.

Issue 2: Appealability of the Commissioner's Decision
The appellant sought to establish the appealability of the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the speaking order post High Court directions. However, the Commissioner, guided by the precedent set in M/s. Rajendra Purohit case, deemed the order administrative and non-appealable. The appellant's attempt to distinguish their case based on High Court directions was dismissed, reiterating the administrative nature of the decision. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, considering it inappropriate to maintain a non-appealable case on record.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 129A of Customs Act, 1962
The appellant argued that Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, allows appeals to the Tribunal without distinguishing between quasi-judicial or administrative orders. However, the Commissioner, bound by the Division Bench decision, declined to consider this argument. The Commissioner reiterated the administrative nature of the decision and the need for adherence to judicial discipline. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, emphasizing the precedence set by the Division Bench decision.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the jurisdictional aspects of the Commissioner's decision to prohibit a Custom House Agent's functions, the appealability of such decisions, and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions. The Tribunal's decision, guided by precedents and regulatory frameworks, highlights the importance of judicial discipline and adherence to established legal principles in determining the outcome of appeals in customs-related matters.