Appeal not maintainable against prohibition order under Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations

The Court held that an appeal is not maintainable against an order of prohibition under Regulation 21 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004. It upheld the validity of Regulations 21 and 22(8) of the CHALR, 2004, answering Question (a) in the affirmative and Questions (b) and (c) in the negative. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of appeal against an order passed under Regulation 21 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004.
2. Validity of Regulation 22(8) of the CHALR, 2004 in relation to the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Validity of Regulation 21 of the CHALR, 2004 in relation to the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Maintainability of Appeal Against an Order Under Regulation 21
The Tribunal held that an appeal is not maintainable against an order passed under Regulation 21 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, which prohibits a Customs House Agent from working in one or more sections of the Customs Station. The Appellant argued that under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, an appeal lies to the Tribunal against any decision or order passed by the Commissioner of Customs as an adjudicating authority. The Appellant contended that a prohibitory order under Regulation 21 is an order passed by an adjudicating authority and thus appealable under Section 129A. However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, following its earlier decision in Vetri Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs.

Issue 2: Validity of Regulation 22(8) of the CHALR, 2004
The Appellant questioned whether Regulation 22(8) of the CHALR, 2004 is ultra vires the Customs Act, 1962, arguing that it takes away the substantive right of appeal to the CESTAT as provided under Section 129A of the Customs Act. The Court examined Section 146 of the Customs Act, which mandates licensing for Customs House Agents and empowers the Board to frame regulations, including those governing appeals against orders of suspension or revocation of a licence. The Court noted that Regulation 22(8) specifically provides for an appeal against orders of suspension or revocation but not against prohibitory orders under Regulation 21. The Court found no inconsistency between Section 129A and Section 146, concluding that the Regulations constitute a self-contained code for licensing and disciplinary control over Customs House Agents.

Issue 3: Validity of Regulation 21 of the CHALR, 2004
The Appellant also questioned whether Regulation 21 is ultra vires the Customs Act, 1962. Regulation 21 allows the Commissioner of Customs to prohibit a Customs House Agent from working in one or more sections of a Customs Station if the agent fails to fulfill obligations under Regulation 13. The Court held that Regulation 21 does not constitute a revocation or suspension of a licence but merely a prohibition from working in certain sections. The Court emphasized that the wisdom of the legislature in not providing an appeal against such prohibitory orders does not fall for re-evaluation by the Court. The Court concluded that there is no inherent right of appeal and that such a right must be created by statute or regulation.

Conclusion:
The Court affirmed that an appeal is not maintainable against an order of prohibition under Regulation 21 of the CHALR, 2004. It answered Question (a) in the affirmative, and Questions (b) and (c) in the negative, thereby upholding the validity of Regulations 21 and 22(8) of the CHALR, 2004. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.

---