2020 (2) TMI 240 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of appeal when the Appeal against such Order of the Chief Commissioner was voluntarily withdrawn by the same Appellant and no further remedy was sought against such order - Tribunal entertained the appeal - Maintainability of Appeal against an Order of the Principal Commissioner - speaking and reasoned Order - HELD THAT - They seek to question the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the appeal from the Order-In-Original. It is the argument of the Appellant that when appeal against order of Chief Commissioner was withdrawn and no further remedy was sought, an appeal before the Tribunal from the Order-In-Original could not have been entertained. This submission cannot be accepted. The Tribunal has entertained the appeal against the Order-In-Original relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS BOMBINO EXPRESS PVT. LTD. 2018 (2) TMI 1509 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . In this case also an identical argument was advanced. The Appellant in this case also had approached the Tribunal after rejection of the representation. In the case of Principal Commissioner of Customs vs. Bombino Express Pvt. Ltd., objection was raised to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal on the ground that there was merger of the order passed under representation with the Order-In-Original and thereafter no appeal should have been entertained by the Tribunal. Whether the Honourable CESTAT s Order is legal proper in its conclusion that no inquiry was conducted pursuant to suspension of the registration when it is clearly detailed in the Order in Original dated 26-11-2015 that, the decision to grant no further license was being ordered with attendant forfeiture and penalty based on the inquiry/investigation conducted by issue of SCN dated 12-12-2014 as adjudicated by Order in Original dated 26-10-2015? - HELD THAT - It takes exception to the observations of the Tribunal that procedure as contemplated under the Regulation 14 was not followed while revoking the registration of the Respondent. This submission also cannot be accepted. The operative part of the Order-In-Original is ambiguous. It only states that no license to operate be granted to the Respondent under Regulation 10. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Order-In-Original revokes the license and there is ample material on record to show that the revocation was justified. There is no debate on the factual position that, after suspension of the license there was no further inquiry giving opportunity to the Respondent before passing the Order-In-Original - The second proviso to the Regulation 14 states that if Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs is of the opinion that grounds cannot be established prima facie without an inquiry, he may conduct an inquiry and in the meanwhile may suspend the registration. If suspension of the license takes place then the proviso contemplates an inquiry. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain an appeal from the Order-In-Original.
2. Compliance with Regulation 14 in revoking the registration of an Authorized Courier.
3. Observations by the Tribunal regarding the procedure under Regulation 14.

Issue 1: The Appellant challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from the Order-In-Original, arguing that no further remedy was sought after withdrawing an appeal against the Chief Commissioner's order. The Tribunal relied on a previous case and rejected this argument, stating that the Regulations under the Customs Act provide for an appeal to the Tribunal against the Order-In-Original. The Division Bench emphasized that the remedy of appeal under the Customs Act is available despite representations made under Regulation 14(2), ultimately allowing the Tribunal to entertain the appeal. The withdrawal of the appeal does not negate the Tribunal's jurisdiction, as per the precedent cited.

Issue 2: The Appellant contested the Tribunal's observation that the procedure under Regulation 14 was not followed in revoking the Respondent's registration as an Authorized Courier. The Order-In-Original was found to be ambiguous, merely stating that no license should be granted to the Respondent under Regulation 10. The absence of a further inquiry after the suspension of the license, as required by the second proviso of Regulation 14, was highlighted. This lack of inquiry, which should have been conducted after suspending the registration, supported the Tribunal's decision that the revocation was not justified. The Tribunal's stance on the procedural irregularity was upheld, indicating that the questions raised by the Appellant did not hold merit.

Issue 3: The Tribunal's conclusion that the procedure under Regulation 14 was not adhered to in revoking the registration of the Respondent was supported. The Order-In-Original lacked clarity and did not provide an opportunity for the Respondent to be heard after the suspension of the license. The failure to conduct an inquiry as mandated by the Regulation following the suspension of registration was a key factor in the Tribunal's decision. Consequently, the Appellant's contentions regarding the legality of the Tribunal's observations were dismissed.

The appeal was ultimately dismissed, and the application was disposed of accordingly in light of the judgment. The detailed analysis of each issue highlights the Tribunal's adherence to legal provisions and precedents in determining the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and the procedural compliance required under Regulation 14 for revoking the registration of an Authorized Courier.