2015 (11) TMI 1332 - AT - Customs

Customs Broker's Licensing Regulations: Appeal Dismissed on Appointment Challenge

M/s Unique Logistic Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (ACC & Import), Mumbai

M/s Unique Logistic Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (ACC & Import), Mumbai - 2015 (326) E.L.T. 594 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Maintainability of the appeal against the order appointing an Inquiry Commissioner under Customs Broker's Licensing Regulations, 2013.Analysis:The appellant challenged an Order-in-Original appointing an officer as an Inquiry Commissioner to inquire into a Customs Broker's case. The appellant argued that the order was appealable before the Appellate Tribunal as it was passed by the Commissioner in the capacity of an adjudicating authority under the Customs Broker's Licensing Regulations, 2013. The appellant contended that the order fell under Sec. 129(A) of the Customs Act, 1962, making it appealable. The appellant emphasized that the order was issued under CBLR, 2013, made under Sec. 146 of the Customs Act. The appellant highlighted that no offence report was forwarded to the Commissioner, rendering the initiation of the inquiry improper. Therefore, the appeal was deemed maintainable by the appellant.On the contrary, the Revenue argued that the appeal was not maintainable as the order appointing the Inquiry Officer was administrative and not an adjudication order. The Revenue asserted that the order was for information purposes only, addressed to the officers involved, and not directly to the appellant. Citing relevant judgments, the Revenue contended that administrative orders appointing officers could not be appealed against by the appellant. The Tribunal carefully considered both sides' submissions on the matter of maintainability.The Tribunal observed that the order in question was solely for the appointment of officers and did not directly aggrieve the appellant. It was noted that a notice for holding an inquiry was issued to the appellant, which was distinct from an adjudication order. Referring to Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013, the Tribunal highlighted that the notice issued by the Commissioner was in line with the regulation, which did not provide for appealable orders in such instances. The Tribunal concluded that the notice for holding an inquiry could not be appealed against, and the order appointing officers was not an adjudication order subject to appeal. As no order for suspension or revocation of the license was issued, the appeal was deemed non-maintainable. The appellant was granted the liberty to appeal any final order after the inquiry, but the current appeal was dismissed for being non-maintainable.In the operative part pronounced in court, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating it was not maintainable at that stage against a notice for holding an inquiry and an administrative order appointing officers.