9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 752 - HC - CustomsMaintainability of appeal - appeal rejected on the ground that the appeal preferred under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 is not maintainable - suspension of Customs Broker License - Whether Regulation 21 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 prohibits an appeal by the revenue department in case it were aggrieved of an order passed under the said Regulations? - HELD THAT - The expression any person aggrieved which finds mention in Section 129A of the Act cannot include the revenue, in matters concerning issuance of licence. The appeal to the Tribunal, as per the statutory provisions referred, is restricted only to two situations i.e., against an order of suspension or revocation of licence. Clearly, it confines the right of appeal only to the Customs Broker. The Customs Broker having succeeded before the Commissioner of Customs (Airport and General), the revenue, cannot prefer an appeal. The questions of law proposed by the revenue, cannot be entertained, as they stand concluded by the decision rendered by the coordinate bench of this Court in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL) VERSUS FALCON INDIA 2018 (11) TMI 314 - DELHI HIGH COURT where it was held that In these circumstances, that the order of the Commissioner was styled as an order-in-original or even that it mistakenly pointed to an appellate remedy under Section 129A of the Customs Act, was not in any manner conclusive or whether such appeal was maintainable. This Court is therefore of the opinion that the CESTAT's decision is sound and does not call for an interference. Appeal disposed off.
Issues:
Appeal against Tribunal's order of rejection under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 - Maintainability of appeal by revenue department - Interpretation of Regulation 21 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 - Scope of appeal under Section 129A - Applicability of judgments in similar cases. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the Tribunal's order rejecting the revenue's appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, based on the maintainability of the appeal. The respondent, a Customs Broker, had his license suspended due to violations noted during clearance of goods. The Commissioner of Customs revoked the suspension after an inquiry and adjudication. The revenue department appealed under Section 129A, which the Tribunal dismissed, leading to the current appeal. The revenue argued that Section 129A allows any aggrieved person to appeal against a Commissioner's decision, questioning if Regulation 21 of the 2013 Regulations prohibits such appeals. On the contrary, the respondent contended that appeal rights are restricted to suspension or revocation orders. The court referred to the Falcon India case, aligning with the respondent's stance that appeal rights are limited to Customs Brokers affected by suspension or revocation. Regulation 21 of the 2013 Regulations aligns with Section 146(2)(g) of the Act, permitting appeals against suspension or revocation of licenses. The court emphasized that only Customs Brokers can appeal under Section 129A, as seen in the DHL Express case. The court concurred with the judgments in Falcon India and DHL Express, emphasizing that the right of appeal can be restricted by statutory provisions. The court highlighted that the expression "any person aggrieved" in Section 129A does not include the revenue department in licensing matters. The right of appeal is limited to Customs Brokers affected by suspension or revocation. The court dismissed the revenue's proposed questions of law, as they were addressed in previous judgments. The appeal was disposed of, with a mention of an SLP filed against a related case, indicating potential impact on the current matter.
|
