2014 (7) TMI 729 - HC - Customs

Suspension of the licence of the petitioner as custom broker - petitioner directed to surrender the licence when appeal is pending before the tribunal - allegation that the petitioner firm has aided/abetted the importers in evasion of duty - Held that - the alleged incident took place during the year 2011 for which action has been proposed during 2013. The respondent has issued a show cause notice on 23.10.2013 in which it was proposed to impose penalty. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 18.11.2013 and thereafter, the licence of the petitioner was suspended on 06.01.2014. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 19.02.2014, the suspension was ordered to continue. With the above facts, at this stage, this Court cannot go in to the question as to whether the impugned order has been validly passed or not especially when the petitioner has filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which alone is competent to go in to the question as to the validity of the order dated 19.02.2014. Therefore, without going into the validity of the impugned order dated 19.02.2014, especially when the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner is pending before the Appellate Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 19.02.2014 shall be stayed till such time the appellate Tribunal take up the appeal and decide the appeal on its own merits. - Decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to suspension of custom broker license based on alleged duty evasion

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the suspension of their custom broker license by the respondent following allegations of duty evasion in connection with certain imported jewelry clearance. The petitioner argued that the suspension was unwarranted, as it was based on events from 2011 and invoked Regulation 19 of the Customs Act without satisfying essential requirements. The petitioner contended that the suspension order was belated and lacked immediate necessity, citing precedents emphasizing the need for swift action in such cases. The respondent, however, justified the suspension, claiming the petitioner aided in customs duty evasion and was given ample opportunity before the license was suspended.

The petitioner further argued that the suspension order did not afford them an opportunity for a hearing as required by Regulation 19. They also highlighted that no loss was incurred by the department due to their actions, questioning the necessity of the suspension. The petitioner referenced legal decisions emphasizing the importance of immediate action in cases of suspension and the need for clear justification for such measures. The court noted the pendency of the petitioner's statutory appeal before the Appellate Tribunal due to the absence of a Judicial Member, prompting the petitioner to file the writ petition for urgency.

Considering the circumstances and legal precedents, the court stayed the impugned suspension order until the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal is decided. The court emphasized that the observations made in the writ petition should not influence the appellate Tribunal's decision, which should be based on the merits of the case and in accordance with the law. The court disposed of the writ petition, ensuring that the appeal would be handled independently and promptly by the Appellate Tribunal.