9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 815X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order has been passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General) Mumbai, who is second respondent before this Court. By this order, respondent No.2 has prohibited the petitioner from operating as customs house brokers within Mumbai Customs Zones I, II and III pending enquiry under Regulation 20 of the aforementioned regulations. 3] The brief facts leading to the institution of this Writ Petition are that the petitioner has been issued the license under the Customs Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 on 21st February, 2005. This license was issued under the then "Customs House Agents License Regulations". The said license is renewed from time to time and valid upto 26th July, 2016. The petitioner claims to be operating on the basis of this license and throughout India. 4] In terms of this license and acting as customs house agent, the petitioner claims to have handled major cargoes at Mumbai Port. The details of the cargoes handled have been set out in paras11 and 12 of the Writ Petition. 5] One Larsen & Toubro Sapura Shipping Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as a client) engaged the services of the petitioner in respect of import of heavy duty pipe laying Vessel. The petitioner f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch as the Essentiality Certificate was cancelled by the Director General of Hydrocarbons, Noida (UP). Therefore, another Writ Petition bearing No.2980 of 2011 was filed and the order cancelling the Essentiality Certificate was set aside. 7] There are now show cause notices issued to the importer and Larsen & Toubro Limited and others and which are pending adjudication. However, what we are concerned with, is the notice issued to the petitioner dated 14th April, 2014 seeking to prohibit it from operating as customs house broker within Mumbai Customs ZoneI, II and III namely Mumbai Port, Airport and Nhava Sheva. The petitioner had to come to this Court because the authorities made an order on 9th May, 2014 on the show cause notice and that was assailed by it by filing the other Writ Petition which is also on board today. This Court directed the authorities to pass a speaking order after hearing the petitioner on the show cause notice and until, then, not to prohibit it from operating as customs house broker. 8] In terms of this Court's order, the hearing was held and now the impugned order has been passed which is challenged in the present Writ Petition. 9] Mr. Shah, learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that does not mean that he has failed to perform his duties as Custom Broker or failed to supervise proper conduct of the employees in the transaction of his business or that there are acts of omission or commission on the part of the petitioner or its employees during their employment. Mr. Shah submits that this drastic order has been passed merely to ensure that the petitioner does not pursue the case of the importer/client. When the proceedings are pending and the client is yet to be saddled with any liability of payment of duty, or penalty, then, the impugned order could not have been passed. Further, the impugned order proceeds on the footing that the matter has been taken up with the parent Commissionerate at Cochin. Pending the parent Commissionerate's action and under Regulation 20, the Commissioner of Customs (General) Mumbai, has chosen to propose a prohibition order. He has on his own stipulated a time frame for the parent Commissionerate to act. That does not mean that Mumbai Commissionerate can ensure a suspension of the license in an indirect manner. It is for the parent Commissionerate to take the requisite step. The present order means forcing a decision on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the contention that this amounts to suspension or revocation of the license. For these reasons, it is submitted that the Writ Petition be dismissed. 11] We have with the assistance of Mr. Shah and Mr. Jetly, perused the impugned order and all annexures to the Writ Petition. We have carefully perused the Regulations. We need not go into any larger controversy or question. For the present, we are satisfied that the Regulation empowers the authorities to issue license, supervise and control the working of the Customs Brokers and equally ensure fulfillment and compliance with the terms and conditions on which the license is issued. That the Customs Broker is required to be licensed and cannot, therefore, carry on the business otherwise, is clear from reading of Regulation 3. Thereafter, there are stipulations and clauses which enable making of an application and its due consideration. The grant of license is covered by Regulation No.7 and thereafter the execution of bond, furnishing of security, period of validity of license, are dealt with by Regulations 8 and 9. As per Regulation 10, the license is not transferable. The obligations of the Customs Broker are set out in Regulation 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been passed and all this is to the knowledge of the department. Further, the attempt of the importer/client in approaching the Assistant Commissioner of Customs to assess the Vessle not on permanent basis but temporary one and seeking amendment to the Bill of Entry, is also to the knowledge of the department. These events are of the year December 2010. Therefore, there is no explanation much less a justification for initiation of proceedings in the year 2014 against the petitioner and that too for prohibition from operation or working at the Mumbai Customs Station. 12] The Commissioner at Mumbai had taken up the issue with the Cochin Customs which is the parent Commissionerate and which has issued the license to the petitioner in terms of the Regulations. That Commissioner could have very well suspended the license if there was any requirement and necessity of doing so. Further that Commissioner could have also proceeded against the petitioner in terms of the Regulations for revoking the license. That despite, such a matter being taken up with the parent Commissionerate, the Customs Commissioner at Mumbai, thought it fit to invoke Regulation 23 is something which has not been cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
