9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 847 - HC - CustomsMaintainability of appeal - allegations regarding fraudulent import of goods (tyre scrap) - forging customs copy of the Bills of Entry - right to prefer an appeal under Section 129A or 129D of the Customs Act, 1962 against an order passed under Regulations 21 or 23 of the Custom Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 is available only to a Custom Broker? HELD THAT - In terms of Regulation 21 of the CBLR, 2013, an appeal against the order of the Commissioner is available only to the Custom Broker and not to the Revenue. The question whether an appeal by the Revenue would be maintainable is covered against the Revenue, by the decision of this Court in CCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL) VERSUS FALCON INDIA 2018 (11) TMI 314 - DELHI HIGH COURT . The said decision was also followed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL) VERSUS D.S. CARGO AGENCY 2022 (10) TMI 752 - DELHI HIGH COURT . The Court had held that, CBLR was a complete code. Further, the expression any person aggrieved as used in Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 would not include Revenue insofar as any order passed by the Commissioner of Customs under the CBLR, 2013 is concerned. Appeal dismissed/
Issues involved:
The appeal impugned an order rejecting the appellant's appeal under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 on the ground of maintainability. Summary: The respondent, a custom broker, faced allegations of fraudulent import of goods by a company named 'M/s Tinna Rubber and International Ltd.' The Commissioner initiated proceedings against the respondent under the CBLR, 2013, leading to the suspension and subsequent revocation of the respondent's Custom Broking License. The Revenue appealed against the revocation order under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 before the CESTAT, following the prescribed procedure. The main question raised was whether the Revenue had the right to appeal under Section 129A or 129D of the Customs Act, 1962 against orders under Regulations 21 or 23 of the CBLR, 2013. The Court referred to previous decisions, emphasizing that according to Regulation 21 of the CBLR, 2013, the appeal right lies with the Custom Broker and not the Revenue. The Court cited precedents, including Commissioner of Customs (General) v. Falcon India and Commissioner of Customs (General) v. D.S. Cargo Agency, to support the position that the Revenue is not included as "any person aggrieved" under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 concerning orders by the Commissioner of Customs under the CBLR, 2013. Ultimately, the Court found no reason to deviate from the established decisions and dismissed the appeal, stating that the question of law raised by the Revenue was conclusively decided against them by previous judgments of the Co-ordinate Bench.
|
