Page 143 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

2020 ] ASIAN FREIGHT v. PRINCIPAL COMMR. OF CUS. (AIRPORT & ADMINISTRATION) 325

sue show cause notice - Point answered against petitioner - Regulation 20(1) of
Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013. [paras 54, 55]
Customs Broker - Revocation of order of suspension - Petitioner seek-
ing relief granted by Division Bench decision in Md. Yeasin v. State of West
Bengal requiring completion of proceedings within three months from date of
service of notice - HELD : Petitioner yet to respond to show cause notice - Rea-
soning on which suspension directed to be revoked in Md. Yeasin (supra) not
available, in view of distinct facts and circumstances - If at all proceedings for
revocation not completed within time-limit stipulated in sub-regulation (7) of
Regulation 20 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 petitioners may
approach Court afresh for revocation of order of suspension dated May 31,
2016 - Petitioner not entitled to relief of revocation of order of suspension -
Regulation 20 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013. [paras 56, 57, 58,
59]
Petition dismissed
CASES CITED
A.M. Ahamed & Co. v. Commissioner — 2014 (309) E.L.T. 433 (Mad.)
— Distinguished .................................................................................................................. [Paras 17, 44]
Artee Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — 2016 (332) E.L.T. 470 (Cal.) — Relied on ........ [Paras 12, 35]
Balwant Singh v. Anand Kumar Sharma — (2003) 3 SCC 433 — Relied on ................................... [Para 41]
Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. — (2003) 2 SCC 111 — Relied on .............. [Para 41]
Dalchand v. Municipal Corporation, Bhopal — (1984) 2 SCC 486 — Relied on ............... [Paras 41, 42, 46]
Escorts Farms Ltd. v. Commissioner — (2004) 4 SCC 281 — Followed ........................................... [Para 35]
Hyundai Motors India Ltd. v. Union of India — 2015 (318) E.L.T. 83 (Mad.) — Relied on ......... [Para 48]
India Sales International v. Collector — 100 C.W.N. 429 — Referred .............................................. [Para 43]
Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Limited
— (2007) 8 SCC 705 — Relied on ................................................................................................. [Para 41]
Kuldeep Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi — (2006) 5 SCC 702 — Relied on .................................... [Para 41]
Masterstroke Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner
— 2016 (332) E.L.T. 300 (Mad.) — Distinguished .................................................... [Paras 17, 45, 46]
Md. Yeasin v. State of West Bengal — 2006 (3) CHN 655 — Distinguished ...... [Paras 19, 26, 50, 56, 58]
N.C. Singha and Sons v. Union of India — 1998 (104) E.L.T. 11 (Cal.)
— Distinguished .................................................................................................................. [Paras 10, 34]
Nasiruddin v. Sita Ram Agarwal — (2003) 2 SCC 577 — Relied on ................................................. [Para 41]
P.T. Rajan v. T.P.M. Sahir — (2003) 8 SCC 498 — Relied on .............................................................. [Para 41]
Punjab State Electricity Board Ltd. v. Zora Singh — (2005) 6 SCC 776 — Relied on ..................... [Para 41]
Rajesh Kumar Jain v. Union of India — 1999 (113) E.L.T. 57 (Cal.)
— Distinguished .................................................................................................................. [Paras 18, 53]
Remington Rand of India Ltd. v. Workmen — AIR 1968 SC 224 — Relied on ............................... [Para 41]
Rubee Air Freight Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2010 (257) E.L.T. 20 (Cal.) — Referred ...................... [Para 11]
Saro International Freight System v. Commissioner — 2016 (334) E.L.T. 289 (Mad.)
— Distinguished ............................................................................................................ [Paras 17, 45, 46]
Sharif-ud-din v. Abdul Gani Lone — AIR 1980 SC 303 — Relied on ............................................... [Para 47]
Union of India v. Kanti Tarafdar — 1997 (91) E.L.T. 51 (Cal.) — Distinguished ................. [Paras 18, 53]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri S.B. Saraf, K.K. Maiti, Arijit Chakraborty,
Prabir Bera and Debaditya Banerjee, Advocates, for
the Petitioner.
S/Shri Somnath Ganguli and Bhaskar Prasad
Banerjee, Advocates, for the Respondent.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  143