2014 (11) TMI 415 - HC - Customs

Violation of regulations 13(a) and 13(j) by courier agency - Revocation of license - Power of Commissioner to suspend license - Held that - inquiry that is contemplated by the further proviso is not to justify issuance of notice but for establishment of the grounds to enable the concerned to record a finding as to whether the revocation could be visited or not. When that inquiry is contemplated by the second proviso and an inquiry has to be held, only if the Commissioner is satisfied that the grounds cannot be established without such inquiry, then, he may hold an inquiry and in the meanwhile, he has discretion to suspend the registration of the authorised courier. If the Commissioner is to be prima facie satisfied and in terms of this further proviso, then, he is empowered to hold an inquiry and has also the further discretionary power. The suspension cannot be said to be arbitrary due to the seriousness of the allegations and to ensure that the petitioner is not committing acts which would result in further violations of the regulations. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that there is no power to suspend the registration - Decided against the appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the suspension of registration of an authorized courier agency pending inquiry for alleged violations of regulations.

Analysis:
The writ petition challenges the suspension of the petitioner's registration by the Commissioner of Customs pending an inquiry for alleged violations of regulations. The petitioner, a courier agency, was accused of not obtaining prior permission to outsource components in the supply chain, failing to pass an examination, and not maintaining proper electronic records for engaging third-party couriers. The suspension was challenged on the grounds that no inquiry had been conducted, and the suspension could economically harm the petitioner. The petitioner cited a Delhi High Court judgment and Tribunal orders to support their case.

The High Court examined the provisions of Regulation 14 concerning suspension and revocation of registration. It noted that the Commissioner has the discretion to suspend registration pending an inquiry to establish prima facie grounds for violations. The Court emphasized that the inquiry is not to justify notice issuance but to determine if grounds for revocation exist. The seriousness of the allegations justified the suspension to prevent further violations. The Court rejected the petitioner's reliance on the Delhi High Court judgment, stating it did not support their case.

The Court held that the suspension was not arbitrary and was necessary to ensure compliance with regulations. It emphasized that the Commissioner is the best judge of the situation and can suspend registration if necessary. The Court directed the completion of the inquiry by a specified date and allowed challenging any adverse order in accordance with the law. Ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded, maintaining the suspension pending the completion of the inquiry.