Page 141 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

2020 ] ASIAN FREIGHT v. PRINCIPAL COMMR. OF CUS. (AIRPORT & ADMINISTRATION) 323

(iii) If at all any documents are required, it will suffice that the petitioner
gives an indemnity bond for one year agreeing and undertaking to
make good the loss, if at all there is any claim from any other party
within the said period.

_______

2020 (373) E.L.T. 323 (Cal.)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Dipankar Datta, J.
ASIAN FREIGHT
Versus
PRINCIPAL COMMR. OF CUS. (AIRPORT &
ADMINISTRATION)
W.P. No. 14810 (W) of 2016, decided on 30-8-2016
Customs Broker - Suspension of license, Confirmation of - Attempt to
smuggle consignment of high valued misdeclared goods from Singapore to
India in guise of Nepal import - Petitioner arguing respondent acting in excess
of jurisdiction by confirming order of suspension and calling for immediate
action in nature of interim suspension - HELD : Having regard to materials
disclosed, instant case not one where no reasons have been disclosed why im-
mediate action was not required or warranted - Nature of order dated May 3,
2016 together with observations contained therein provide sufficient grounds
to distinguish Division Bench decision in N.C. Singha [1998 (104) E.L.T. 11
(Cal.)] - Although respondent may not have disclosed in order impugned why
decisions placed before him were not applicable, mere omission to do so can-
not be held fatal - Reasons furnished for confirming order of suspension,
sound and justify acceptance - Action taken under Regulation 19 of Customs
Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 unexceptionable and no interference
called for - Regulation 19 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013. -
The seized goods, having estimated market value of ` 5.5 crore, appeared to be liable for
confiscation under Sections 111(l), 111(m) & 111(n) of the Customs Act and that the
first petitioner, being the declared importer’s agent, had filed the CTD (Import) with the
customs authority with signatures of its director on the prescribed declarations in a me-
chanical manner, without observing the basic principle of representing its client based in
Nepal. Such order also records the acceptance of the fact by a director of the first petition-
er that it had undertaken the job of handling import consignment of M/s. Jaleshwor Trad-
ers for the first time but appeared not to have discharged their basic responsibilities by
failing to comply with the provisions of the 2013 Regulations. Considering that an in-
quiry ought to be made in the manner prescribed by Regulation 20 for the first petition-
er’s failure to comply with the provisions of the 2013 Regulations, the first respondent
was of the further view that continuation of business transaction by the first petitioner
would be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and immediate action under Regula-
tion 19(1) of the 2013 Regulations is warranted to prevent further misuse of the customs
broker license resulting in the order dated May 3, 2016 seeing the light of the day. It is no
doubt true that after the DRI on July 11, 2014 detected the offence committed by the
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  141