2021 (3) TMI 531 - HC - Customs

Validity of continuation of the suspension of the license issue to the petitioner - license was originally suspended vide order dated 8.1.2018 - Regulation 19 (2) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013 - HELD THAT - In the light of the interim order, the petitioner has been allowed to continue to operate as a Customs Broker for last 2 years. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed off by directing the 1 st respondent to complete the proceedings in the show cause notice dated 7.2.2018 within a reasonable time, in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to suspension of license under Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013; Continuation of suspension pending enquiry; Challenge to proceedings based on limitation; Settlement Commission's order impact on ongoing proceedings; Justification of suspension based on collusion with importer; Timeliness of show cause notice issuance; Disposal of writ petition directing completion of proceedings.

The judgment concerns the challenge to the suspension of a license under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013. The impugned Order in Original suspended the petitioner's license, with an enquiry to follow under Regulation 20 (1). The petitioner contended that the suspension was beyond limitation, citing a related case where a license was revoked. Additionally, the Settlement Commission's order settling the case against the petitioner was argued as grounds for quashing the ongoing proceedings. The respondents justified the suspension, alleging collusion with the importer, and timely issuance of the show cause notice within 90 days of receiving the offence report.

The Court noted the interim order allowing the petitioner to operate as a Customs Broker during the proceedings. The judgment directed the completion of the show cause notice proceedings within a reasonable time, maintaining the petitioner's status as a customs broker until the final decision. The Court left all questions open for the 1st respondent to decide on merits, instructing the petitioner to cooperate in the proceedings. The 1st respondent was mandated to pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of the judgment.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with the above observations, with no costs incurred. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed. The judgment provided a balanced approach by ensuring the continuation of the petitioner's operations while allowing for the completion of the necessary proceedings within a specified timeframe, maintaining fairness and due process throughout the legal process.