2018 (6) TMI 1022 - AT - Customs

Order of Prohibition on CHA - Regulation 23 of CBLR 2013 - it was alleged that custom broker has prima facie not fulfilled their obligation laid down under the regulation 11D, 11E, 11F and 11N of CBLR, 2013 - Principles of Natural Justice - Held that - The adjudicating authority has passed the order without following the principles of natural justice. Even though explicit provision is not there under the Regulation 23 of CBLR but for taking any such decision it is incumbent upon the authority to follow the principles of natural justice. The adjudicating authority is directed to consider the representation, if any, made by the appellant and thereafter pass a fresh order. In the meantime, the prohibition from working in Mumbai Zone I, II, and III is revoked. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of prohibition under Regulation 23 of CBLR 2013 to custom broker.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged an order of prohibition under Regulation 23 of CBLR 2013, preventing a custom broker from working in all sections of Mumbai Customs Zones I, II, and III. The appellant argued that the prohibition was based on alleged contraventions of regulations and misclassification by the importer, for which the custom broker should not be held responsible. It was contended that the order was issued arbitrarily without following principles of natural justice, as no show-cause notice or hearing was provided. The appellant relied on precedents such as the cases of Harjeet Singh Johar and Harish Sethi to emphasize the importance of notice and hearing in such matters.

The revenue, represented by the Ld. AC (AR), supported the impugned order, asserting that the Commissioner had the authority to issue a prohibition order under Regulation 23 of CBLR. It was argued that the order was not appealable, citing the case of Balaji Logistics. The revenue maintained that the Commissioner's decision was justified and warranted, indicating that the order should stand as an interim measure.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal refrained from delving into the specifics of the alleged offense by the custom broker. However, it was noted that the adjudicating authority had failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice in passing the order. While Regulation 23 did not explicitly require a show-cause notice or hearing, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of natural justice in such decisions. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to review any representations from the appellant and issue a fresh order. As a result, the prohibition on the custom broker from working in Mumbai Zones I, II, and III was lifted. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the pronouncement made in court on 23.05.2018.