2020 (3) TMI 104 - HC - Customs

Revocation/suspension of Customs Broker License - whether the Customs Broker Licence of the petitioner / appellant which was already suspended has to be revoked or the suspension should continue? - HELD THAT - Though notice has been given by the Revenue to the licensee to appear for enquiry in order to comply with the direction issued by the learned Judge in the order impugned directing the Revenue to consider the application of the licensee dated 17.10.2014 which was pending all along the licensee has not chosen to appear before the authorities concerned of the Revenue - Though this factor is disputed by the learned counsel for the licensee / appellant no document has been produced by the licensee / appellant to show that in response to the said communication given by the Revenue to the licensee / appellant to appear before the authority concerned the licensee / appellant appeared before such authority. This Writ Appeal deserves to be rejected - However since it had not been made clear before this Court as to whether the enquiry has been conducted pursuant to the notice issued in this regard by the Revenue we are inclined to give an opportunity to the appellant licensee to appear before the authorities concerned and accordingly the appellant licensee shall appear before the authorities concerned on 10.03.2020.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order for appearing in customs broker license inquiry, interpretation of regulations for suspension and investigation, validity of expired license, direction for consideration of license application, failure to appear before authorities, interference with writ court's order.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged an order from the Writ Court directing them to participate in an inquiry regarding the suspension of their Customs Broker License. The Writ Court emphasized that the appellant had conducted business with a valid license until its expiration, and instead of cooperating with the inquiry, they obtained an interim order from the court. The court directed the authorities to consider the appellant's case on its merits, taking into account the previous license granted to the appellant. The court clarified the distinction between immediate suspension under Regulation 20 and detailed investigation under Regulation 22, stating that following Regulation 22 was discretionary, not mandatory.

The Writ Court cited legal precedents to support its decision, emphasizing that depriving a citizen of the right to conduct business without a court verdict on criminal offenses would be arbitrary. The court also noted that it could not direct the authorities to issue a temporary license when no provision existed for such issuance. Consequently, the Writ Court directed the authorities to consider the appellant's license application pending before them and make a decision within a specified timeframe, while also instructing the appellant to cooperate with the inquiry.

In the appeal, the High Court noted that the appellant had not appeared before the revenue authorities despite being notified to do so. The court affirmed the Writ Court's decision, stating that the appellant must present their case before the authorities for a decision on the restoration of the license. The High Court emphasized that any grounds the appellant wished to raise should be presented to and evaluated by the revenue authorities. The High Court rejected the appeal, instructing the appellant to appear before the authorities on a specified date and present their case, with a decision to be made within two weeks thereafter.

Overall, the High Court upheld the Writ Court's direction for the appellant to engage with the revenue authorities regarding the license inquiry and emphasized the need for the appellant to present their case for a decision on the restoration of the Customs Broker License. The court stressed the importance of cooperation with the authorities and the consideration of the appellant's arguments on their merits in accordance with the law.