9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 729 - HC - CustomsSuspension of CHA License Non-Compliance of Regulation, 2013 Respondent-1 suspended licence of petitioners by invoking Regulation 19(1) of Regulations, 2013 on alleged involvement of petitioner in evasion of duty by various importers Thereafter, show cause notice was issued proposing to revoke licence of petitioner under provisions of Regulation 18 Vide impugned order licence of petitioner was revoked and forfeiture of amount of security deposit was ordered Held that - Admittedly petitioner failed to inform actual import to customs authorities and evaded legitimate customs duty including anti-dumping duty Hence charge of not informing department, violating provisions of Regulation 11(d) stands proved After issuance of show cause notice to petitioner had submitted their reply, thereafter, petitioner participated in enquiry and was given opportunity to file their reply first respondent did not acted contrary to principles of natural justice or beyond his jurisdiction in order to interfere with impugned order Therefore, in view of existence of the aforesaid alternative remedy, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ application fails and is dismissed. Decided against the petitioner.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the suspension and revocation of the Customs Broker's license. 2. Compliance with the principles of natural justice. 3. Availability and appropriateness of alternative remedies. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Suspension and Revocation of the Customs Broker's License: The petitioner, a licensed Custom House Agent, was accused of facilitating the evasion of anti-dumping duties by misdeclaring the country of origin of imported PVC flex banners. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) conducted an investigation and found that the petitioner had colluded with importers to misuse Importer Exporter Codes (IECs) and evade duties. Consequently, the petitioner's license was suspended under Regulation 19(1) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR, 2013), and a show cause notice was issued proposing the revocation of the license under Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2013. The Enquiry Officer's report, submitted beyond the mandatory 90-day period, found violations of Regulation 11(d) and 18(c) of CBLR, 2013, leading to the revocation of the petitioner's license and forfeiture of the security deposit. The petitioner challenged the suspension and revocation, arguing that the misuse of IECs was not an offense under the Customs Act and that the proceedings were premature as no final adjudication had taken place against the importers. 2. Compliance with the Principles of Natural Justice: The respondents argued that all procedural requirements were met, including issuing a show cause notice, allowing the petitioner to reply, and conducting a personal hearing. The Enquiry Officer's report and the petitioner's final representation were considered before the impugned order was passed. The court found that the principles of natural justice were followed, and the petitioner had participated in the enquiry process. 3. Availability and Appropriateness of Alternative Remedies: The court emphasized that the Customs Act provides a comprehensive and exhaustive code, including an appellate remedy under Section 129-A of the Act. The court noted that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy available and that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should be exercised sparingly. The court cited precedents emphasizing the need to exhaust alternative remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to approach the Customs, Central Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal within six weeks. The Tribunal was instructed to entertain the appeal without considering the limitation aspect and to decide the case on its merits. Order: The writ application was dismissed, and the petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal with the Tribunal. The court emphasized that the Tribunal should consider the appeal in accordance with the law, without being influenced by the observations in the court's order. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
|
