2015 (7) TMI 880 - HC - Customs

Suspension of Custom Broker License - perpetration of fraudulent clearance of the goods - the goods were not valid for duty free clearance - Held that - In the given facts and circumstances and peculiar to the Petitioner and as the Petitioner has been carrying on business from 1905, as claimed in the Writ Petition, it being a sole proprietary concern and the sole proprietress depending for her livelihood on this business that the suspension of the license till date will serve the ends of justice. In other words, we do not think that any further suspension is required when the Petitioner has assured us that she would attend the adjudication proceedings and co-operate with the adjudicating authority in early conclusion of the same, that this is the sole instance in the entire career is also a factor and peculiar to the Petitioner, which leads us to direct that the order dated 10th December, 2014 suspending the license shall come to an end on 24th December, 2014. Thereafter, the license shall be taken to be in force and pending the remaining period for which it was issued - Petition disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Commissioner of Customs suspending Customs Broker License.

Analysis:
The petition was filed to challenge the order dated 10th December 2014 of the Commissioner of Customs, which was passed under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation, 2013. The Commissioner found prima facie evidence of the Petitioner failing to discharge obligations as a Customs Broker, leading to fraudulent clearance of goods not valid for duty-free clearance. Immediate action was deemed necessary to prevent misuse of the license, resulting in the suspension of the Customs Broker License No. 11/319 held by the Petitioner. The matter was scheduled for a hearing on 23rd December 2014, which was later postponed to 24th December 2014.

During the hearing, the Petitioner contended that there was no compliance with the principles of natural justice, emphasizing the need for a pre-decisional hearing. The Petitioner argued that the alleged violations were related to past acts from 2011 to 2012 and did not warrant immediate suspension after more than two years. The Revenue, however, justified the suspension order.

The Court refrained from detailed scrutiny, considering the suspension matter. It did not express an opinion on the necessity of a pre-decisional hearing but acknowledged the peculiar circumstances of the Petitioner, who had been in business since 1905. Taking into account the sole proprietorship and livelihood dependence on the business, the Court directed the end of the suspension on 24th December 2014, allowing the license to be in force for the remaining period it was issued. The Court clarified that this decision did not imply a judgment on the merits of the allegations or the Petitioner's role.

The Court emphasized that the end of suspension did not obligate the Respondents to renew the license, and the issue of renewal and further adjudication would proceed independently. The Petitioner was instructed to cooperate with the adjudicating authority for the prompt conclusion of proceedings. The Court kept all contentions open and directed all concerned parties to act on a duly authenticated copy of the order for compliance.