2015 (11) TMI 760 - HC - Customs

Modification of order passed - whether the order passed by the Writ Court can be modified by mentioning, unless there is a typographical or clerical mistake - Held that - The appellant/writ petitioner came up with the writ petition, initially, by making a statement, which was later on retracted by way of mentioning. The appellant/writ petitioner has no explanation for the same, except that it was a mistake. By a subsequent order, the stay granted during pendency of appeal was modified by the Writ Court and the stay was confined only to a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, granting liberty to the appellant/writ petitioner to take recourse to the CESTAT. - The order passed by the Writ Court is just and proper, warranting no interference. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to legality and validity of suspension order of Customs Broker license during enquiry.

Analysis:
The appellant, as the writ petitioner, challenged the legality and validity of an order suspending their Customs Broker license during an enquiry. The order required the appellant to surrender their original license book and Customs ID cards. The appellant mentioned that an appeal was pending before the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) due to a lack of quorum at Chennai. The Writ Court initially stayed the impugned order until the appeal was decided by the Tribunal.

The Writ Court modified its order after a mention was made without a proper application by the appellant's counsel. The modified order directed the appellant to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within one month and stated that the observations made in the writ petition should not influence the Appellate Tribunal's decision. The appellant had no explanation for retracting their initial statement, claiming it was a mistake. The stay granted during the appeal was limited to one month, allowing the appellant to approach the CESTAT.

The main issue was whether the Writ Court's order could be modified through a mention without a typographical or clerical error. The appellant's initial statement was retracted without a valid explanation, leading to a modification of the stay period during the appeal. The Court declined to delve into the case's merits at that stage, finding the Writ Court's order just and proper, warranting no interference. Consequently, the writ appeal was dismissed, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.