Page 145 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

2020 ] ASIAN FREIGHT v. PRINCIPAL COMMR. OF CUS. (AIRPORT & ADMINISTRATION) 327

and to pass such order as he deems fit either revoking the suspension or continu-
ing it, as the case may be, within a further period of 15 days of the date of hear-
ing granted to the Customs Broker. The proviso to sub-regulation (2) ordains that
should the suspension be directed to be continued, further procedure thereafter
shall be as provided in Regulation 20.
8. After the license of the first petitioner was suspended by the order
dated May 3, 2016, representatives of the petitioners appeared before the first
respondent on May 18, 2016 and urged various points in support of their conten-
tion that the order of suspension itself deserves to be revoked. One of such
grounds has been reiterated before this Bench by Mr. Saraf, Learned Advocate
for the petitioners with sufficient force.
9. According to Mr. Saraf, the incident of alleged offence culminated in
the order of penalty dated April 19, 2016 under Section 112 of the Customs Act.
Before such order, the license of the first petitioner was renewed on January 12,
2016, and no adverse report in regard to functioning of the first petitioner as a
Customs Broker was also received. There was absolutely no warrant for ordering
suspension of the license and that it was not an appropriate case where immedi-
ate action in the nature of an interim suspension was called for. In such circum-
stances, the first respondent really acted in excess of jurisdiction by confirming
the order of suspension.
10. In support of the submission that immediacy of action is the sine qua
non for ordering suspension, Mr. Saraf placed reliance on the Division Bench de-
cision of this Court reported in 1998 (104) E.L.T. 11 (Cal.) [N.C. Singha & Sons v.
Union of India] whereby the order of suspension was interdicted and set aside on
the ground that neither did it spell out that any immediate action is required to
be taken in the matter nor did the order on its face indicate that such action was
indeed warranted.
11. Reliance was also placed by Mr. Saraf on the decision of a coordi-
nate Bench reported in 2010 (257) E.L.T. 20 (Cal.) [Rubee Air Freight Ltd. v. C.C.
(Airport & Administration), Kolkata], wherein considering the nature of allegations
that were levelled, the Bench was of the prima facie view that immediate suspen-
sion was not warranted leading to grant of interim order as prayed for.
12. It was next contended by Mr. Saraf that several decisions having a
bearing on the question of suspension of license had been placed before the first
respondent for his consideration, but unfortunately none was considered. Rely-
ing on the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 2016 (332) E.L.T. 470
(Cal.) (Artee Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India), he contended that the first re-
spondent was under an obligation to consider the decisions that were placed and
to disclose why the ratio thereof did not apply to the facts and circumstances be-
fore him. Such failure amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice
and, therefore, a remand may be directed so that the grievance of the first peti-
tioner could be meaningfully considered.
13. Initiation of proceedings under Regulation 20 of the 2013 Regula-
tions was also challenged by Mr. Saraf by contending that the same are without
jurisdiction.
14. Regulation 20(1), it was submitted, authorizes the principal com-
missioner or the commissioner to issue a notice in writing to the Customs Broker
within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of an offence report stat-
ing the grounds on which it is proposed to revoke the license or impose penalty,
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  145