Page 164 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

698 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

spondent were involved in these operations. Statement of the director of the re-
spondent was recorded. On 26 June, 2014, the license of the respondent to act as
an Authorised Courier was suspended. Show cause notice was issued on 12 De-
cember, 2014 to all concerned including respondent under the provisions of Sec-
tion 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. Further investigation was done by Air Intelli-
gence Unit. Notice was issued to the respondent on 19 March, 2015 under Regu-
lation 14 of the Regulations to show cause why the registration granted to the
respondent be not cancelled, why forfeiture of security should not be ordered
and why penalty should not be imposed. Thereafter the Principal Commissioner
of Customs by Order dated 27 November, 2015 cancelled the registration to op-
erate as an Authorised Courier in terms of the Regulations.
4. The respondent made a representation to the Chief Commissioner
under Regulation 14(2) of the Regulations on 5 January, 2016. This representation
was rejected by the Chief Commissioner of Customs on 14 September, 2016 in
Order No. 2/2016/CCO/MZ-III. Thereafter the respondent filed two appeals
before the Tribunal. One challenging the order passed by the Principal Commis-
sioner dated 26 November, 2015 i.e. Order-in-Original. Another challenging the
order dated 14 September, 2016 rejecting the representation. The Tribunal enter-
tained the appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 26 November, 2015 and set
aside the said order by impugned decision dated 25 January, 2019. The respond-
ent had withdrawn the appeal challenging the rejection of representation by or-
der dated 14 September, 2016. Hence the present appeal on the above-mentioned
question of law.
5. Since the question centers around Regulation 14, for ready reference,
the same is reproduced as under :
“Regulation 14. Deregistration. — (1) The Commissioner of Customs
may revoke the registration of an Authorised Courier and also order forfei-
ture of security on any of the following grounds, namely :-
(a) Failure of the Authorised Courier to comply with any of the
conditions of the bond executed by him under regulation 11;
(b) failure of the Authorised Courier to comply with any of the
provisions of these regulations;
(c) misconduct on the part of Authorised Courier whether within
the jurisdiction of the said Principal Commissioner or Com-
missioner of anywhere else, which in the opinion of the Prin-
cipal Commissioner or Commissioner renders him unfit to
transact any business in the Customs Station :
Provided that no such revocation shall be made unless a notice has been is-
sued to the Authorised Courier informing him the grounds on which it is
proposed to revoke the registration and he is given an opportunity of mak-
ing a representation in writing and a further opportunity of being heard in
the matter, if so desired :
Provided further that, in case the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner
of Customs, as the case may be considers that any of such grounds against
an Authorised Courier shall not be established prima facie without an in-
quiry in the matter, he may conduct the inquiry to determine the ground
and in the meanwhile pending the completion of such inquiry, may sus-
pend the registration of the Authorised Courier. If no ground is established

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  164