9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustice or unreasoned or perverse. The Authorities are within their jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. No right of the petitioner, for less a fundamental right, has been established to be violated by the order impugned - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - WP No. 79 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 22-2-2017 - Debangsu Basak, J. Mr. R.K. Chowdhury, Mr. Protyush Chatterjee, Advs. for the petitioner Mr. Amitabrata Ray, Mr. Bhaskar P. Banerjee, Advs. for the respondents ORDER The Court : The petitioner assails an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs dated January 27, 2017 exercising powers under Regulation 20(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004. Learned advocate for the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed with regard to the importer to be the investigating report. The Commissioner is not entitled to do so. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, a show cause notice was issued on November 25, 2014. The proceedings under Regulation 20(2) of the Regulations of 2004 was taken in 2016 much after the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of the report from the Investigating Authority, assuming there was a report by the investigating authority. Therefore the proceedings are time barred. He refers to the impugned order in which such point is taken by the petitioner. He submits that such point has not been decided correctly. Learned advocate for the petitioner relies upon 171 E.L.T. 301 (Kamal Kumar Agarwal vs. Union of India) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner is a customs house agent. The petitioner was involved in the import of goods as custom house agent, by diverse entities. Proceeding against the importer, including the petitioner, was initiated on the basis of Intelligence report given by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence in respect of such imports. A show cause notice dated November 25, 2014 was issued under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. It relates to import of branded glass chatons by various persons. The import was found to be made by mis-declaring the description of the imported items as well as its value and misuse of import codes. The order in original is detailed. It returns a finding of complicity by the petitioner in the transaction. It imposes penalty on the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Commissioner to take cognizance and issue an order of suspension. Kamal Kumar Agarwal (supra) is on a fact scenario which is different to the one obtaining in the present case. There the impugned order of suspension was set aside on the ground of nonadherence to the principles of natural justice. In the present case the petitioner has been allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the final order of suspension was passed. The impugned order is appealable. The petitioner has chosen not to prefer an appeal therefrom. The petitioner has chosen to approach the Writ Court. Existence of a statutory alternative remedy is not a complete bar to a person applying under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However once a person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
