Page 166 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

700 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

Customs in terms of Regulation 9 and then, the registration is granted in
exercise of powers of registration under Regulation 10. There are compli-
ances to be made and particularly of execution of bond and furnishing of
security. By Regulation 12, it is stated that a courier, who is registered un-
der Regulation 10 or had intimated in form ‘A’ to the Commissioner of Cus-
toms having jurisdiction over the Customs Station from where he has to
transact the business, shall furnish a bond and security as specified in
Regulation 11 for each Customs Station. The obligation of authorised couri-
er is set out in Regulation 13 and then, there is a power of de-registration.
That power is conferred in the Commissioner of Customs. By sub-
regulation (2) of Regulation 14, the aggrieved authorised courier and whose
authorisation is revoked or he is de-registered, may, if aggrieved by the or-
der of the Commissioner, represent to the Chief Commissioner of Customs
in writing against such order of the competent authority and thereafter it is
permissible for the Chief Commissioner to dispose of the representation.
12. The Tribunal found that even this mechanism is in place. Eventually,
everything is traceable to the Customs Act, 1962 and once the said Act pro-
vides for an appeal and that appeal would lie to this Tribunal against the
order-in-original, then, merely because a representation or a remedy of
making a representation is provided by the Regulations, that does not dis-
place the appellate authority of the Tribunal. We do not think that the Tri-
bunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, has acted perversely in en-
tertaining the appeal. More so, when the attempt of the Revenue was to
question its jurisdiction on more than one occasion. Additionally, we have
found that the Tribunal, if approached and it is regularly done in the cases
of the Customs House Authorisation Regulations by the aggrieved agent,
then, against the orders of the Tribunal restoring the licences or authorisa-
tion, the Revenue has brought appeals under the Customs Act, 1962 before
this Court. Therefore, one opportunity being provided in the scheme of the
law to the aggrieved courier does not cause serious prejudice to the Reve-
nue. More so, when it can always approach this Court against the orders of
the Tribunal.”
The Division Bench held that what is provided in the Regulation 14(2) is a repre-
sentation and ultimately the remedy of appeal is available under the Customs
Act, 1962 and rejection or otherwise of such representation will not take away the
jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the appeal from Order-in-Original. In the
present case the appellant has withdrawn the appeal but if there is no merger
and what is decided is only a representation, then withdrawal of the appeal will
also fall within the ambit of the view taken by this Court in Principal Commission-
er of Customs v. Bombino Express Pvt. Ltd. In view of the dicta of the Court in the
case of Principal Commissioner of Customs v. Bombino Express Pvt. Ltd., we cannot
accept the argument advanced by the appellant that the Tribunal had no jurisdic-
tion to entertain the appeal.
7. As regards the third question is concerned it takes exception to the
observations of the Tribunal that procedure as contemplated under the Regula-
tion 14 was not followed while revoking the registration of the respondent. This
submission also cannot be accepted. The operative part of the Order-in-Original
is ambiguous. It only states that no license to operate be granted to the respond-
ent under Regulation 10. The Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that
the Order-in-Original revokes the license and there is ample material on record
to show that the revocation was justified. There is no debate on the factual posi-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  166