Page 148 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

330 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

Point - (i)
28. Although the cause lists of the CESTAT for August 9 and 10, 2016
were produced by Mr. Ganguly, he admitted that one of the two members com-
prising the Bench is an outstation member and, therefore, the Bench is not regu-
larly available.
29. In that view of the matter, an efficacious, alternative and speedy
remedy to the petitioners cannot be said to be available and, therefore, this Bench
would proceed to consider the other points on merits overruling the objection of
Mr. Ganguly.
30. This point is answered accordingly.
Point - (ii)
31. It is not in dispute that the incident forming the bedrock of action
initiated against the petitioners by the respondents (suspension of the license and
revocation proceedings) occurred sometime in July, 2014. Although in paragraph
34 of the writ petition it has been pleaded that the first respondent did not men-
tion the date of receipt of the offence report in the show cause notice dated July
18, 2016, Mr. Saraf has himself shown from the order dated May 31, 2016 that the
date of receipt of offence report by the first respondent is available in paragraph
32(xii) thereof. For the purpose of a decision on this point, this Bench shall pro-
ceed on the assumption that April 19, 2016 was the date of derivation of
knowledge of an offence having been committed, inter alia, by the petitioners,
warranting action under Regulation 19 of the 2013 Regulations.
32. The power to suspend a Customs Broker’s license under sub-
regulation (1) of Regulation 19 can be exercised by the Principal Commissioner
or the Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, in appropriate cases calling
for immediate action where an inquiry against such broker is pending or con-
templated. The first and foremost requirement for suspending a license is, there-
fore, an inquiry, which is either pending or is contemplated. Once such condition
is satisfied, the further condition is that of an immediate action being necessary
in appropriate cases. The word ‘inquiry’ has not been defined in the 2013 Regula-
tions. Such word is also not defined in the Customs Act. In the absence of any
definition of the word ‘inquiry’, one has to read the provisions of the 2013 Regu-
lations in between lines to ascertain its appropriate meaning. Regulation 18 lists 6
(six) situations, which would essentially necessitate an inquiry to unravel wheth-
er a case exists or not for revocation of license as well as order for forfeiting part
or whole of security or imposing a penalty not in excess of the specified amount
on a Customs Broker. A reading of the order dated May 3, 2016 passed by the
first respondent would reveal the following observations :
“M/s. Asian Freight, unit of Esan Freight & Travel Pvt. Ltd. (CHA) being
the agent of the declared Nepal based importer M/s. Jaleshwor Traders,
Koteshwor-35, Kathmandu, Nepal filed Customs Transit Declaration in
prescribed format in CTD (Import) No. S 51/4841/R/14A, dated 10-7-2014
declaring the description of goods in Container No. OOLU 8352725(40’) as
“Electronic & Mix goods” viz. Cooker 1.5 & 2.2 Ltr, Tyre Liquid 1.0 Ltr.
With corresponding Invoices, packing list issued by supplier M/s. Oqality
Export House Pte. Ltd., 77, High Street Plaza, Singapore. In the Bill of Lad-
ing No. OOLU 2548834830 as well as the CTD No. S51/4841/R/14A dated
10-7-2014 the goods were also mentioned as 545 Cartons of Electronic &
Mix goods and the total CIF value was mentioned as Rs. 7,18,916/- Usually,
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  148