2018 (8) TMI 640 - HC - Customs

Suspension of CHA License - procedure of suspension of license - Regulation 19 of CBLR - Held that - When the statute or law prescribes for a remedy of appeal, it is conceded that it is alternate and equally efficacious. The misconception that an appeal can be filed only if there is an order passed and duly served on the parties like the petitioners need not detain us. It is a misconception, for even inaction or noncompliance with the rules or not passing a specific order of suspension but putting up a one line communication or note of suspension on the website can also be highlighted. The petitioners can highlight the inaction of the authorities in not dealing with the representation of the petitioners promptly. The Tribunal has been consistently entertaining appeals and even against the orders of suspension. Petition dismissed for want of alternate and equally efficacious remedy.

Summary

Issues:
1. Suspension of license of a Clearing and Forwarding Agent.
2. Compliance with procedural rules for suspension of license.
3. Availability of alternate remedy through Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain writ petitions challenging suspension orders.

Analysis:

1. The petitioners, a Clearing and Forwarding Agent and its Director, challenged the suspension of their license by the Madras Customs House, enabling operations in Mumbai Customs. The petitioners were denied access to the electronic generation system for filing a Bill of Entry, citing license suspension based on a screenshot.

2. The petitioners contended that the suspension was illegal as per Regulation 19 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, alleging non-compliance with prescribed procedures. They argued that statutory procedures must be strictly followed, citing legal precedents like Nazir Ahmed vs. King Emperor and Ramchandra Keshav Adke vs. Govind Joti Chavare.

3. The respondents maintained that the petitioners should seek redressal through the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, emphasizing the existence of factual disputes and the need for due process. The Court noted that while an alternate remedy exists, the High Court's jurisdiction is not ousted in cases of ex facie illegal actions contrary to procedural rules.

4. After considering both sides, the Court declined to set a precedent of entertaining writ petitions challenging suspension orders of Customs House Agents/Customs Brokers. The Court highlighted that the Tribunal is well-equipped to address grievances, including inaction by authorities, and has the power to grant necessary reliefs. The petition was dismissed for lack of an alternate and equally efficacious remedy, with no order as to costs.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues raised in the case, focusing on the suspension of the license, compliance with procedural rules, the availability of an alternate remedy through the Tribunal, and the High Court's jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions challenging suspension orders.