2018 (5) TMI 364 - AT - Customs

Whether when jurisdictional Customs Commissionerate of another Customs station has issued an order of prohibition under Regulation 23, whether a parallel action of suspension of licence under Regulation 19 can be done by the parent Customs Commissionerate in respect of an act or omission involving the Customs broker at the other Customs station? Held that - if the jurisdictional Commissionerate of Customs at the other Customs station finds that the infraction by the branch of the Customs broker is serious enough requiring further punitive action, he could very well write to the parent Customs Commissionerate conveying the facts of the matter and recommending further action under Regulation 19 or Regulation 18. Discernably, if the appellants had committed any breach of the CBLR Regulations in the jurisdiction of the parent Customs Commissionerate , the competent authority would have been well within his rights to take stock of the situation and if found appropriate and necessitating immediate action, to order suspension of the licence of the appellant. This is certainly not the case here. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Suspension of license under Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013.
2. Compliance with procedural requirements under CBLR, 2013.
3. Jurisdictional conflicts between different Customs Commissionerates.
4. Double jeopardy and legality of simultaneous actions by different Commissionerates.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the suspension of a customs broker's license under the CBLR, 2013, based on an offense report received from the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. The suspension was continued by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, leading to the appeal challenging the legality of the suspension.

2. The appellant argued that the suspension was unwarranted as the alleged violation occurred in Mumbai, not under Chennai Customs jurisdiction. They contended that the suspension was not justified under Regulation 19 of the CBLR, which requires immediate action only in specific circumstances. The delay in issuing a show cause notice (SCN) was also highlighted as a procedural violation.

3. The Tribunal examined the jurisdictional conflicts between different Customs Commissionerates under the CBLR, 2013. It emphasized that higher degrees of penal action, such as suspension of license, can only be taken by the parent Commissionerate that issued the license. The Tribunal clarified that simultaneous actions by different Commissionerates for the same violation would amount to double jeopardy.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal found the suspension order to be legally unsustainable and an overreach. It noted that the suspension lacked justification and supporting communication from the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. The Tribunal set aside the suspension order, ruling in favor of the appellant and allowing the appeal.

This detailed analysis outlines the key legal issues, procedural aspects, jurisdictional conflicts, and the Tribunal's reasoning behind setting aside the suspension order, providing a comprehensive understanding of the judgment.