Page 149 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

2020 ] ASIAN FREIGHT v. PRINCIPAL COMMR. OF CUS. (AIRPORT & ADMINISTRATION) 331

as per the agreed Memorandum to the Protocol to the Treaty between India
and Nepal, transportation of the containerized cargo, are allowed clearance
by Customs Officer without examination, unless there are valid reasons to
do otherwise. Based on the intelligence, the container under dispute was
examined in presence of the Importer’s agent, i.e. CHA M/s. Asian Freight,
unit of Esan Freight & Travel Pvt. Ltd. resulted in recovery of huge quantity
of explicitly misdeclared goods namely, Sony Bravia LED TV 24 inch, pre-
mium foreign liquor like Chivas Regal Scotch Whisky, Glenfiddch 2 years
Single Malt Scotch Whisky and DJARUM BLACK Cloves Cigarettes.”
33. The seized goods, having estimated market value of Rs. 5.5 crore,
appeared to be liable for confiscation under Sections 111(l), 111(m) and 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 di-
rector on the prescribed declarations in a mechanical manner, without observing
the basic principle of representing its client based in Nepal. Such order also rec-
ords the acceptance of the fact by a director of the first petitioner that it had un-
dertaken the job of handling import consignment of M/s. Jaleshwor Traders 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 inquiry ought to be made in the manner prescribed by regulation 20 for the
first petitioner’s failure to comply with the provisions of the 2013 Regulations,
the first respondent was of the further view that continuation of business trans-
action by the first petitioner would be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue
and immediate action under Regulation 19(1) of the 2013 Regulations is warrant-
ed 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 Nepalese importer,
for whom the first petitioner acted as a Customs Broker, sufficient time had
elapsed and in the meanwhile, the license was also renewed but that does not
detract from the fact of receipt of the offence report by the first respondent on
April 19, 2016, and initiation of action for suspending the license, for the reasons
mentioned in his order, immediately thereafter within 2 (two) weeks.
34. Having regard to the materials disclosed by the first respondent, it
is not a case where no reasons have been disclosed why immediate action was
not required or warranted. The nature of the order dated May 3, 2016 together
with the observations contained therein provide sufficient grounds for this Bench
to distinguish the Division Bench decision in N.C. Singha (supra), where interdic-
tion was made on the ground mentioned in paragraph 6 of the decision, noted
above, regarding lack of reasons why immediate action was warranted. The deci-
sion in Rubee Air Freight (supra), apart from being an interim order, is also one
which ought to be confined to the facts before the Bench as would appear from
paragraphs 7 to 15 thereof.
35. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the law laid down in
the decision in Artee Overseas (supra). However, insofar as remand prayed for by
Mr. Saraf on the basis thereof is concerned, this Bench is inclined to follow the
view of the Supreme Court expressed in its decision reported in (2004) 4 SCC 281
(Escorts Farms Ltd. v. Commissioner, Kumaon Division) reading :
“Rules of natural justice are to be followed for doing substantial justice and
not for completing a mere ritual of hearing without possibility of any
change in the decision of the case on merits.”
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  149