Saini Consultants vs Commissioner of Customs

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.—This appeal has been filed u/s 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') proposing following substantial questions of law:

(a) Whether impugned order is perverse and discriminatory when appeal of other appellants have been allowed?

(b) Whether the respondent has passed the impugned order in gross violation of principle of natural justice?

(c) Whether the act of respondent amounts to violation of fundamental right of business and trade of the appellant?

(d) Whether the licence of the appellant can be suspended for the act and omissions of clearing agents when they are not at all employees of the appellant?

(e) Whether licence of appellant can be kept suspended for indefinite period?

The Appellant was holding a licence which was governed by the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 framed under the Act. Under Regulation No. 20 the Commissioner of Customs has the jurisdiction to revoke the licence for violations specified therein which includes misconduct on the part of the licence. Pending inquiry, where immediate action is necessary, there is a power to suspend.

The Commissioner of Customs vide order dated 2-12-2005, after referring to the inquiry pending against the petitioner on the allegation of clearance in goods on the basis of forged duty payments under DEPB Scheme against various bills of entry, suspended the licence of the petitioner. The said order was challenged before the 2008 (128) ECC 180 .

Learned Counsel for the appellant presses question (e) and submits that even where suspension was valid when ordered, the same could not continue for an indefinite period.

We find merit in the contention raised.

Power to suspend licence under Regulation 20(2) could be exercised for taking immediate action but exercise of the said powers, carries corresponding duty to conclude the pending inquiry within reasonable time.

We accordingly decide the question (e) to the effect that suspension of licence cannot be continued for indefinite period and enquiry has to be concluded within reasonable time.

There is no material on the record of the present case whether delay is justified or not. Thus, we are unable to give any finding in this regard. However, after hearing learned Counsel for the respondent, we direct that the pending inquiry be concluded within three month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. After the conclusion of the inquiry, the competent authority may pass further order within one month thereof.

The petition is disposed of.