2018 (2) TMI 1509 - HC - Customs

Restoration of Registration of Courier License - All that the Revenue would argue is that the Tribunal should not have interfered with the concurrent orders for they are passed on the materials produced on record - Jurisdiction of CESTAT - Regulation 14 of the said Regulations - Held that - There are compliances to be made and particularly of execution of bond and furnishing of security. By Regulation 12, it is stated that a courier, who is registered under Regulation 10 or had intimated in form A to the Commissioner of Customs having jurisdiction over the Customs Station from where he has to transact the business, shall furnish a bond and security as specified in Regulation 11 for each Customs Station. The obligation of authorised courier is set out in Regulation 13 and then, there is a power of de-registration. That power is conferred in the Commissioner of Customs. By sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 14, the aggrieved authorised courier and whose authorisation is revoked or he is de-registered, may, if aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, represent to the Chief Commissioner of Customs in writing against such order of the competent authority and thereafter it is permissible for the Chief Commissioner to dispose of the representation. We do not think that the tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, has acted perversely in entertaining the appeal. More so, when the attempt of the Revenue was to question its jurisdiction on more than one occasion. The case of the Revenue is not that the courier agent sub-contracted to sublet/outsource any of the activity/function for the purpose of assessment and clearance of courier parcels. On further scrutiny, it was found that the charge of violation of Regulation 13(j) is not substantiated - also, the tribunal found that no infringement of KYC verification leading to any significant revenue loss was pointed out even in the SCN. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of courier license despite prior suspension.
2. Sustainability of impugned order in light of Delhi High Court's order.
3. Jurisdiction of CESTAT in rejecting appeal.

Issue 1 - Restoration of courier license:
The case involved the suspension and subsequent revocation of a courier license due to misdeclaration and undervaluation of imported goods by the first respondent. The High Court had directed an inquiry to be completed expeditiously, leading to the revocation of the license. The Chief Commissioner rejected the appeal, leading to the Tribunal setting aside the concurrent orders. The Tribunal found the lapses to be minor and unjustified for further punishment, leading to the restoration of the license by forfeiting the security deposit. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal should not have interfered as the orders were based on the record, not perverse, and not vitiated by any legal errors. However, the Tribunal found the violations to be minor and justified in setting aside the orders.

Issue 2 - Sustainability in light of Delhi High Court's order:
The Revenue argued that the impugned order was sustainable despite the Delhi High Court's dismissal of a writ petition by the first respondent. The Revenue relied on the Delhi High Court's order and proceedings before the Settlement Commission to support the concurrent orders. However, the Tribunal interfered with the orders, leading to the current appeal challenging the Tribunal's decision. The Tribunal found that the violations alleged against the first respondent were not substantial and did not warrant further punishment, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Issue 3 - Jurisdiction of CESTAT in rejecting appeal:
The Revenue contended that the CESTAT erred in exercising its jurisdiction by restoring the license, as the appeal/representation made by the first respondent was rejected by the Chief Commissioner of Customs. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal should not have interfered with the concurrent orders based on the materials produced on record. However, the Tribunal found that the appeal was maintainable, and the regulatory and disciplinary matters were contested on merits, justifying the Tribunal's decision to set aside the orders.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision to restore the courier license based on the minor lapses found and the lack of justification for further punishment. The Court found that the Tribunal's decision was well-reasoned and supported by factual aspects, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's arguments against the Tribunal's jurisdiction and decision.