2017 (5) TMI 798 - AT - Customs

Power of Commissioner of Customs (General) to review orders of Commissioners of Customs - section 129D (1) of CA 1962 - Held that - In terms of Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations 1984 (which we are concerned with in the present instance) the power to license is vested in the Commissioner of Customs. That authority is therefore the master to whom the agent owes its existence. It is the Commissioner of Customs who is responsible for the operation and functioning of the Customs House and any detriment to efficient functioning of the Customs House will ultimately reflect on that authority - There is no other authority more concerned with weeding out of unacceptable elements and therefore there is no cause for any other authority to sit in judgement on the decision of a Commissioner that continued operation of licencee is detrimental to the functioning of the Customs House. We cannot countenance reading down the general provisions of review and appeal to apply to dropping of disciplinary proceedings against customs house agents in the face of specific and deliberate non-inclusion of such contingency in section 146 of Customs Act 1962 and the Regulations framed thereunder. There is no such provision for review in the Customs House Agents Licencing Regulations 1984 - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.

Issues:
1. Review of an order passed in exercise of powers under section 129D of Customs Act, 1962.
2. Legality and propriety of the impugned order revoking the suspension of a customs house agent's license.
3. Authority and procedure for revocation of a custom house agent license under Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984.
4. Applicability of general provisions in the Customs Act, 1962 in the context of specific provisions for custom house agents.

Issue 1: Review of an order under section 129D of Customs Act, 1962
The appeal before the Tribunal stemmed from a review committee's opposition to the revocation of suspension of a customs house agent's license. The Tribunal analyzed the legality and propriety of the review process under section 129D, emphasizing the need to determine the efficacy of such reviews given the time delays in disposal of appeals. The section empowers the Committee of Chief Commissioners to call for and examine records to ensure the legality and propriety of decisions, directing further actions as necessary.

Issue 2: Legality and propriety of the impugned order
The Tribunal scrutinized the impugned order revoking the suspension of the customs house agent's license. It was noted that the Commissioner's decision appeared to prioritize the non-operation of the license over the gravity of the offense committed by the agent. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity for the Commissioner to conclude the inquiry proceedings as per the Regulations before making a final decision, indicating that premature appeals may render the process infructuous.

Issue 3: Authority and procedure for revocation under Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984
The judgment delved into the comprehensive framework provided by the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 for licensing and revocation of custom house agents. The Regulations vested the authority solely in the Commissioner of Customs to grant, suspend, or revoke licenses. The Tribunal emphasized that the Regulations outlined a specific appellate mechanism for aggrieved licensees, excluding any higher authority or supervisory role in the process, thereby affirming the finality of decisions made by the licensing authority.

Issue 4: Applicability of general provisions in Customs Act, 1962
The Tribunal examined the interplay between the specific provisions in the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 and the general provisions in the Customs Act, 1962. It emphasized that the Regulations provided a distinct appellate structure only for licensees, reflecting the legislative intent to deny the replication of normal appellate remedies to the disciplinary authority against its own orders. The judgment rejected the notion of applying general provisions for review and appeal to disciplinary proceedings against customs house agents due to the deliberate exclusion of such contingencies in the relevant laws.

The judgment highlighted the intricate balance between regulatory frameworks, legislative intent, and procedural fairness in adjudicating matters related to the revocation of custom house agent licenses. It underscored the significance of adherence to specific regulations governing licensing processes and the limited scope for external intervention in decisions made by the licensing authority. The Tribunal's decision to reject the appeal was grounded in the meticulous analysis of legal provisions and the preservation of the established appellate mechanisms for aggrieved parties within the customs regulatory framework.

← Previous Next →