9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner under Regulation 23 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation, 2013 and on a perusal of Regulation 23, it is clear that 90 days period prescribed under Regulation 22(1) of the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations, 2004, does not find a place. That apart, Regulation 23 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation has not been considered by the Division Bench for the reason that the issue in that Appeal was only in respect of Regulation 22(1) of the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations, 2004 and not with regard to the Regulations under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation, 2013. Admittedly, as per the Regulations, the respondent has also given an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner after the passing of the impugned order on 14.12.2017. Since there is no violation of principles of natural justice, the petitioner should exhaust the alternative remedy by way of an Appeal under Section 129 A(1)(a) of the Customs Act. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - W.P.No.573 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.706 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 19-3-2018 - M. Duraiswamy, J. For the Petitioner : Dr. S. Krishnanandh For the Respondent : Mr. T. Pramod Kumar C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dge or prior information. In the said circumstances, M/s.Niti Traders submitted copies of Bills of Entry dated 06.07.2016 and 21.06.2016 and copies of Bill of Lading for the said consignments. (iv)Pursuant to the said complaint received from M/s.Niti Traders, the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB) summoned the Authorized Signatory of the petitioner viz., V.R.Babu. In response to such summons, the Authorized Signatory appeared in person before the Superintendent of the Investigation Branch on 14.10.2016 and deposed to a voluntary statement. (v)The Investigating Agency also issued summons to Shri Bhavik Shah, S/o.Shri Dinesh H Shah, the owner of M/s.Spanzio Ceramics. In response to the summons, Shri Bhavik D Shah appeared before the Superintendent of SIIB on 24.10.2016 and gave his voluntary statement. On being asked about their relation with M/s.Niti Traders, Mumbai, he interalia stated that he did not know anyone in M/s.Niti Traders. On being asked about the clearance of the consignment in the name of M/s.Niti Traders, he had stated that initially, the supplier Shri Jigar Mehta, Manager of M/s.Foshan Kihut Ceramic Company Limited, China, approached him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d with M/s.Foshan Kihut Ceramic Company Limited in the import of Porcelain Tiles vide Bills of Entry dated 27.06.2016, 06.07.2016 and 21.06.2016. As per Foreign Trade Policy, the IEC allotted to a person is mandatory for undertaking any import/export policy. The person (i.e.) M/s.Niti Traders, who has been allotted the impugned IEC has not undertaken this import, which amounts to import without valid IEC. The respondent arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner had failed to collect the relevant documents from the importer directly and to verify the identity of their client and in view of the same, they have failed to discharge their obligations as a Customs Broker as required under Regulations 11(a)(d) (n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation and passed the order in terms of Regulation 23 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation, prohibiting the petitioner from working in any Section of Chennai Customs Station under the jurisdiction of Chennai Customs Zone. Aggrieved over this order, the petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition. 3.The brief case of the respondent is as follows: (i)According to the respondent, against the impugned order, there is a remedy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner, without exhausting the Appeal remedy, is liable to be rejected. Further, the learned senior standing counsel submitted that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner arose against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai and therefore, the present Writ Petition filed directly before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is liable to be rejected. 7.On a careful consideration of the materials available on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the impugned order has been passed prohibiting the petitioner from working in any Section of the Chennai Customs Station under the jurisdiction of Chennai Customs Zone for the reason that the petitioner had failed to collect the relevant documents from the importer directly and to verify the identity of their client and in view of the same, the petitioner has failed to discharge their obligations as Customs Broker as required under Regulation 11 (a), 11 (d) and 11 (n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation 2013. The respondent also found that a clear prima facie case ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tio laid down by the Division Bench in the unreported judgment dated 13.10.2017 is not applicable to the present case. 12.The respondent, while passing the impugned order, has specifically stated that the petitioner had failed to collect the relevant documents from the importer and to verify the identity of their client and that they failed to discharge their obligations as Customs Brokers as required under the Regulation 11(a), 11(d) and 11(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation. The respondent also found that there is a clear prima facie case made out against the petitioner and that if the petitioner is allowed to continue to operate, it would be detrimental to the interest of the Revenue and hence, took immediate action against the petitioner to prevent them from further misusing the Customs Brokers Licence. The respondent has given cogent reasons for passing the Order of Prohibition under Regulation 23. 13.So far as the alternative remedy is concerned, the petitioner should have filed an Appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 129 A(1)(a) of the Customs Act as against the impugned order passed by the respondent. When alte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
