2015 (10) TMI 2033 - HC - Customs

Revocation of registration of Authorised courier Smuggling of Gold - Assessee contended that no SCN or notice issued setting out grounds on which registration revoked nor an opportunity of being heard is given to put forth their contentions Revenue contended that allegations are serious and it is not for the first time assessee has been involved in such incidence; thus revocation cannot be set out as unreasonable Held That - No SCN or notice issued which states the ground of revocation of registration as per Regulation 14 Independent SCN should have been issued for incidence of 8th September, 2015 - Principal Commissioner was not justified in suspending the registration; order is thus unsustainable Authorities are still free to take steps as per Regulation 14 Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Legality and validity of suspension order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs invoking Regulation 14 of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998.

Analysis:
1. The petition concerns the legality and validity of a suspension order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs against a private limited company acting as an authorized courier under the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998. The petitioner, a subsidiary of a global entity, claims compliance with all regulations and large turnover without any previous detainment or seizure of consignments by the Customs Department.

2. The suspension order was issued following an incident of gold smuggling discovered on September 8, 2015, despite a pending show cause notice from May 2015. The petitioner argues that the order of suspension was unjustified and contrary to Regulation 14, which requires a notice proposing revocation before suspension. The respondent contends that the allegations of smuggling were serious and warranted the suspension to prevent further incidents.

3. Regulation 14 of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 grants the Principal Commissioner the authority to revoke the registration of an authorized courier on specific grounds. The first proviso mandates issuing a notice proposing revocation with an opportunity for representation, while the second proviso allows for suspension pending inquiry if grounds are not prima facie established.

4. The court found that the suspension order lacked compliance with Regulation 14 as there was no notice proposing revocation for the incident in question. The court emphasized that the absence of such a proposal rendered the suspension unsustainable and illegal. The court clarified that its decision did not assess the petitioner's conduct but focused on the procedural irregularity in the suspension order.

5. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the suspension order, allowing the authorities to take appropriate steps based on the incident independently. The court highlighted the need for compliance with regulations and proper procedural adherence in matters of suspension or revocation of registration for authorized couriers.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment comprehensively, highlighting the arguments presented by both parties and the court's interpretation of the relevant regulations leading to the final decision to quash the suspension order.