9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms law is a complete code by itself. The Customs Act and the rules and bye-laws framed thereunder constitute a comprehensive and exhaustive code. The impugned order in the instant case has been passed by the Commissioner of Customs in exercise of his power under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 which are framed under Article 146 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Regulation 21 provides that a Customs Broker who is aggrieved by any order passed by the Commissioner of Customs under the said regulations may prefer an appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act to the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal as provided for, in my opinion, is an efficacious alternative remedy available to an aggrieved broker like the writ petitioner. - court ought not to exercise its extraordinary power under Article 226 of thse Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ application fails and is dismissed. - Decided against appellant. - WP 205 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 13-5-2015 - Arijit Banerjee, J. For the petitioner : R. K. Chowdhury, Adv. For the respondent : S. B. Saraf, Adv., S. K. Saha, Adv. JUDGMENT Arijit Banerjee, J.: (1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms Act, 1962 were not furnished to the petitioner-company and no opportunity was given to deal with such statements by cross-examination or otherwise. (6) This court by its order dated 4th August, 2014 directed the Commissioner of Customs to review the suspension order by giving an opportunity to the petitioner-company to be heard and to contradict the Section 108 statements. (7) Pursuant to the said order of this court the Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Administration) reviewed the earlier suspension order by giving an opportunity to the petitioner-company to be heard and to contradict the statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act. By an order dated 25th November, 2014 the Commissioner of Customs confirmed the earlier order suspending the licence of the petitioner-company in terms of the Regulation 19 (2) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 and also confirming the proceedings already initiated for revoking the license of the petitionercompany under regulation 20 of the 2013 regulations. It is this order of the Commissioner of Customs which is under challenge in the present writ petition. (8) Appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, Mr. Cho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing on behalf of the respondents, Mr. S.B. Saraf, Ld. Advocate disputed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner-company. Firstly he submitted that Mr. Manoj Baid was duly given notice to appear in the proceeding but he failed to turn up; in fact, he disappeared from the scenario altogether. Mr. Baid s licence had been revoked earlier by the customs authorities. Secondly, Mr. Saraf referred to this Court s order dated 4th August, 2014 and submitted that although in the said order there was no direction to allow the petitioner-company to conduct cross-examination of the witnesses whose statements were recorded but, in fact, such cross-examination was allowed. In support of this he also referred to various correspondence exchanged between the parties. He submitted that the proceedings were conducted by rigorously following the principles of natural justice. Thirdly, Mr. Saraf submitted that the period of 90 days mentioned in regulation 20 of the CBLR, 2013 is only directory and issuance of notice beyond the period of 90 days from the date of receipt of offence report does not render the proceedings bad. (11) The main point urged by Mr. Saraf was one of availability of an e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ters like this the persons who have given information should be examined in the presence of the appellant or should be allowed to be cross-examined by them on the statements made before the Customs Authorities. Accordingly we hold that there is no force in the third contention of the appellant. (13) Mr. Saraf also relied on a decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of A.S. Motors Pvt. Ltd.-vs.-Union of India rendered in Civil Appeal No. 1517 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 2490 of 2008). In the said case the Hon ble Supreme Court observed that the principles of natural justice have undergone a sea change. Presently the principle of law is that some real prejudice must have been caused to the complainant. Court has shifted from its earlier concept that even a small violation shall result in the order being rendered a nullity. To the principle/doctrine of audi alteram partem, the distinction has been laid down between the cases where there was no hearing at all and the cases where there was mere technical infringement of the principle. The court applies the principles of natural justice having regard to the affected situation obtaining in each case. It is not applie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India. (19) The Customs law is a complete code by itself. The Customs Act and the rules and bye-laws framed thereunder constitute a comprehensive and exhaustive code. The impugned order in the instant case has been passed by the Commissioner of Customs in exercise of his power under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 which are framed under Article 146 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Regulation 21 provides that a Customs Broker who is aggrieved by any order passed by the Commissioner of Customs under the said regulations may prefer an appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act to the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal as provided for, in my opinion, is an efficacious alternative remedy available to an aggrieved broker like the writ petitioner. Indeed, I am of the view that the appeal is a more comprehensive remedy. (20) In view of existence of the aforesaid alternative remedy, I am of the view that this court ought not to exercise its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ application fails and is dismissed. (21) However, if the petitioner approaches the Customs, Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
