2014 (4) TMI 16 - AT - Customs

Prohibition to function as a Customs Broker within his jurisdiction - Regulation 23 of CBLR, 2013 - Held that - Clause (f) of sub-section (2) deals with the appeals. The said section specifically says that appeal against an order of suspension or revocation of a licence is only admissible if the Regulations so provide. Thus, there is no specific provision for provided in the Regulations to hear an appeal against an order of prohibition. Therefore, so long as the section 146(2) does not provide for appeal against an order of prohibition, it cannot be presumed that CBLR, 2013 provides for an appeal against the order of prohibition to be heard by this Tribunal. The entire CBLR, 2013 has been framed under the powers conferred under section 146(2). Therefore, the provisions of CBLR, 2013 cannot be interpreted in such a way so as to override the provisions of section 146(2). In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the appeal against the order of prohibition does not lie before this Tribunal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not maintainable - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the order prohibiting the appellant to function as a Customs Broker.
- Interpretation of the provisions of CBLR, 2013 and comparison with CHALR, 2004.
- Admissibility of appeal before the Tribunal as per Section 146(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an application for early hearing against the Order-in-Original nos. 15/2013 and 36/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, prohibiting the appellant from operating as a Customs Broker within the jurisdiction under Regulation 23 of CBLR, 2013 pending inquiry proceedings under Regulation 20. The appellant challenged this prohibition order before the Tribunal.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that under Regulation 21 of CBLR, 2013, a Customs broker aggrieved by any order of the Commissioner of Customs can appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act before the Tribunal. The counsel highlighted the difference in wording between CBLR, 2013 and its predecessor CHALR, 2004, emphasizing that the current regulation does not restrict appeals against the Commissioner's orders. Therefore, the counsel contended that the appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal.

3. The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions made by the appellant's counsel regarding the interpretation of the relevant regulations.

4. Section 146 of the Customs Act, 1962 mandates that no appeal against an order of suspension or revocation of a license is admissible unless the regulations specifically provide for it. The Tribunal noted that there is no provision in the Regulations for hearing an appeal against an order of prohibition. Since the Regulations are framed under the powers conferred by Section 146(2), the provisions of CBLR, 2013 cannot be interpreted to override the requirements of Section 146(2). Consequently, the Tribunal held that an appeal against the order of prohibition does not fall within its jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. The application for early hearing was also disposed of accordingly.

This judgment clarifies the limitations on appeals against specific orders of the Commissioner of Customs and underscores the importance of adhering to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 while interpreting related regulations.