AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This petition is filed to challenge the order dated 10 December 2014 of the Commissioner of Customs (General), CBS Section, New Customs House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai.
That is passed in exercise of powers conferred by Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013.
That order, copy of which at Annexure "A" of the Paper Book, is dated 10 December 2014. After setting out the background, facts and relevant Regulations, the Commissioner concludes that there is a prima facie evidence of the Petitioner failing to discharge the obligation as a Customs Broker. The alleged failures have led to perpetration of fraudulent clearance of the goods as the goods were not valid for duty free clearance. The Commissioner was also of the opinion that immediate action is required against the Customs Broker.
It is in these circumstances and by further opinion that transacting business and hereafter would be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue that to prevent misuse of the license, he suspended the Customs Broker License No. 11/319 held by the Petitioner with immediate effect and posted the matter for hearing on 23 December 2014.
The hearing which was scheduled for today has been postponed till tomorrow, i.e. 24th December 2014. Mr. Mehta, on behalf of the Petitioner has raised several contentions including that there was no compliance with the principles of natural justice, meaning thereby a pre-decisional hearing was required and post decisional hearing would not satisfy the requirement in law. Further, there was no emergent situation or immediate apprehension, much less of any future prejudicial acts. The alleged violation is pertaining to import of seven consignments of "Cocoa Powder" from March 2011 to November 2012 without payment of duty against Duty Free Import Authorization. In these circumstances, he would submit that for such past act there could not be any requirement of suspension and after more than two years.
The Revenue justifies this order.
However, we are spared a detailed scrutiny and inquiry, as the matter is of suspension, we do not wish to express any opinion on the power conferred by the Regulations, its nature and whether there is any requirement of a pre-decisional hearing. We are of the opinion that in the given facts and circumstances and peculiar to the Petitioner and as the Petitioner has been carrying on business from 1905, as claimed in the Writ Petition, it being a sole proprietary concern and the sole proprietress depending for her livelihood on this business that the suspension of the license till date will serve the ends of justice. In other words, we do not think that any further suspension is required when the Petitioner has assured us that she would attend the adjudication proceedings and co-operate with the adjudicating authority in early conclusion of the same, that this is the sole instance in the entire career is also a factor and peculiar to the Petitioner, which leads us to direct that the order dated 10 December 2014 suspending the license shall come to an end on 24 December 2014. Thereafter, the license shall be taken to be in force and pending the remaining period for which it was issued.
We clarify that this indulgence and in the peculiar circumstances brought to our notice by Mr. Mehta, would not be construed as any expression of opinion on merits of the allegations and the role of the Petitioner. Further that the suspension has been brought to an end by us does not mean that the Respondents are obliged to renew the license. The issue of renewal of the license and further adjudication in terms of the show cause notice shall proceed on their own merits and in accordance with law. The Petitioner shall cooperate with the adjudicating authority in early disposal of the proceedings. Since there are other persons against whom the allegations have been levelled in the show cause notice and even they are required to answer the charges that we do not stipulate any outer limit for disposal of the proceedings. We expect them to be concluded expeditiously.
This Writ Petition disposed of by keeping all contentions of both sides open.
All concerned to act on simple copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Associate.