Page 144 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

326 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

[Judgment]. - The first petitioner is a Customs Broker, governed by the
provisions of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 (hereafter the 2013
Regulations) framed in exercise of power conferred by sub-section (2) of Section
146 of the Customs Act, 1962. The second petitioner is a director of the first peti-
tioner.
2. This writ petition dated August 3, 2016 is directed against an order
dated May 31, 2016, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (A & A),
Custom House, Kolkata, the first respondent, confirming suspension of license of
the first petitioner in terms of Regulation 19(2) of the 2013 Regulations and a
show cause notice dated July 18, 2016 calling upon the first petitioner to explain
as to why the license issued to it under Regulation 9(1) of Customs House Agents
Licensing Regulations, 2004 (hereafter the 2004 Regulations) shall not be revoked
and security deposit forfeited under Regulation 18 of the 2013 Regulations.
3. It is noticed that the order dated May 31, 2016 was preceded by an
order dated May 3, 2016 passed by the first respondent, whereby the license is-
sued in favour of the first petitioner was suspended with immediate effect and
until further orders under Regulation 19(1) of the 2013 Regulations and an op-
portunity was given to the first petitioner or to its authorized representative to
appear for a post-decisional hearing on May 18, 2016. Such order is also under
challenge in this writ petition.
4. It would appear on perusal of the two orders dated May 3, 2016 and
May 31, 2016 as well as the show cause notice dated July 18, 2016 that there had
been an alleged nefarious attempt to smuggle a consignment of high valued mis-
declared goods from Singapore to India in the guise of Nepal import transit con-
signment by a Customs Transit Declaration (hereafter CTD) filed at Kolkata port
and such consignment was covered by a CTD filed by the first petitioner, who
was none other than the representative of the declared Nepal based importer.
There was an intelligence report suggesting that though the consignment was
destined to Nepal, the misdeclared goods were likely to be diverted to India.
5. It also appears from the writ petition that a prior show cause notice
dated December 24, 2012 had been issued to the first petitioner under Section 124
of the Customs Act by the Additional Director General of the Directorate of Rev-
enue Intelligence (hereafter the DRI), in response whereto a reply dated January
23, 2015 was submitted by the first petitioner. Ultimately, the Commissioner of
Customs (Port) by an order Bearing No. KOL/CUS/COMMISSIONER/PORT/
42/2016, dated April 19, 2016, inter alia, imposed penalty of Rs. 50,00,000.00 un-
der Section 112(a) of the Customs Act on the first petitioner. Feeling aggrieved
thereby, the first petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise
and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the CESTAT) on July 11, 2016,
which is pending.
6. It is this order dated April 19, 2016 that has been considered to be an
offence report by the first respondent while proceeding against the petitioners.
7. In terms of Regulation 19(1) of the 2013 Regulations, a power of sus-
pending a license has been conferred on the Principal Commissioner or Commis-
sioner of Customs, in appropriate cases where immediate action is necessary in
connection with a pending or contemplated enquiry. Sub-regulation (2) man-
dates the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, whoever suspends a license
under sub-regulation (1), to give an opportunity of hearing to the Customs Bro-
ker whose license is suspended within 15 days from the date of such suspension
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  144