2014 (11) TMI 417 - HC - Customs

Court upholds Customs Broker Licensing Regs, affirms appeal right to CESTAT

M/s. Premier Shipping Agencies Versus Commissioner of Customs

The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the order revoking permission to work as a Custom Broker, upholding the validity of Regulation 21 of the ... Revocation of permission granted under Regulation 9(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 - Held that:- Board's power to make regulations would not be limited to the specific clauses but also such regulations for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of Section 146 of the Act. The same would include all facets of carrying on business as an agent. I see no lack of competence /or authority with the Board to provide /or appeals - as has been done under Regulations 21 of CBLR, 2013 - against all orders of the Commissioner passed under the said regulations including under Regulation 23 of CBLR, 2013 - Following decision of Academy of Nutrition Improvement v. Union of India [2011 (7) TMI 1083 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Decided against the appellant. Issues:1. Quashing of order revoking permission to work as Custom Broker.2. Interpretation of appeal provisions under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013.3. Validity of Regulation 21 of CBLR, 2013.4. Authority of the Board to make regulations under Section 146(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.Issue 1 - Quashing of Order:The petitioner sought to quash an order revoking permission to work as a Custom Broker at Delhi Customs Stations. The order was passed by the Commissioner of Customs under Regulation 23 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR, 2013). The petitioner challenged this order through a petition before the High Court.Issue 2 - Appeal Provisions Interpretation:A key contention arose regarding the interpretation of appeal provisions under CBLR, 2013. The respondent argued that an appeal could be made to the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) against the impugned order as per Regulation 21 of CBLR, 2013. However, the petitioner disputed this, citing a decision of CESTAT, Mumbai, which held that Regulation 21 was ultra vires of Section 146(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.Issue 3 - Validity of Regulation 21:Regulation 21 of CBLR, 2013 allows Customs Brokers to appeal any order passed by the Commissioner of Customs to CESTAT. The High Court analyzed the language of Regulation 21 and concluded that appeals under this regulation are not limited to orders of revocation or suspension of a license. The Court also examined Section 146(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, which empowers the Board to make regulations for custom agents.Issue 4 - Authority of the Board:The Court delved into the authority of the Board to make regulations under Section 146(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. It emphasized that the power to make regulations is broad and not restricted by specific clauses. Referring to precedents, the Court highlighted that the Board's regulations should align with the Act's objectives. The judgment dismissed the petitioner's plea, upholding the competence of the Board to provide appeals against orders of the Commissioner under CBLR, 2013.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petition, allowing the petitioner to approach CESTAT for an appeal within two weeks. The judgment clarified that any appeal filed within the specified period would be considered on merit, irrespective of any delay.