9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Entertainability of the writ application due to the availability of an alternative remedy. 2. Merits of the writ application challenging the refusal to renew the agent's license. Issue 1: Entertainability of the Writ Application The Customs Authority raised a preliminary objection regarding the entertainability of the writ application, arguing that an alternative remedy was available by way of an appeal u/s 129A(1)(a) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal is empowered to hear appeals against decisions or orders passed by the Collector of Customs as an adjudicating authority. The Customs House Agent Licensing Regulation, 1984, replaced the 1965 regulations, which included provisions for appeals. The absence of such provisions in the 1984 regulations was argued to imply that appeals should be made to the Tribunal. The Court held that the argument that an appeal lies u/s 129A(1)(a) of the Customs Act against the decision of the Additional Collector of Customs could not be supported. The Court noted that Regulation 21 deals with suspension and revocation of licenses, not with renewal. Regulation 23 prescribes the procedure for suspending or revoking licenses under Regulation 21, and Regulation 23(8) empowers an aggrieved Customs House Agent to appeal u/s 129A of the Customs Act. However, since the order in question pertained to the renewal of the license and not its suspension or revocation, the writ petition was deemed maintainable. Issue 2: Merits of the Writ Application The writ petitioners challenged the refusal to renew their license, which had expired on 13th November 1995. The Customs Authority issued a show cause notice on 13th December 1995, alleging misconduct and non-compliance with obligations under Regulation 14. The allegations included acting without authority, improper delivery of goods, and allowing an unauthorized person to act on behalf of the agents. The Court examined the replies and representations made by the writ petitioners. The Commissioner of Customs, in the impugned order, concluded that the agents had acted without proper authorization and had allowed unauthorized persons to use their rubber stamps and delivery orders, thereby aiding and abetting the importer in the disposal of imported materials. The Commissioner found that the agents had deposited goods in the warehouse and issued delivery orders, which could only be honored under their authority. The Court held that the findings of the Commissioner of Customs were based on consideration of materials on record and were not perverse. The Court emphasized that it could not interfere with findings of fact in the exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution unless such findings were based on no evidence or were beset with surmises and conjectures. Since the findings were based on evidence and consideration of materials on record, the writ petition was concluded by a finding of fact that could not be interfered with. Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed, and the order refusing to renew the agent's license was upheld. There was no order as to costs.
|
