High Court upholds Customs Broker Licence suspension under Regulation 19(1), stresses pending enquiries, affirms licensing authority's discretion.

Sea Coral Clearing & Forwarding Versus Commr. of Cus., Chennai-VIII

Sea Coral Clearing & Forwarding Versus Commr. of Cus., Chennai-VIII - 2017 (345) E.L.T. 620 (Mad.) Issues:
Challenge to order-in-original suspending Customs Broker Licence under Regulation 19(2) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the order-in-original suspending their Customs Broker Licence based on an offence report alleging inadmissible drawback claims on export consignments. The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, passed an order prohibiting the petitioner from working and directed them to surrender customs passes. The respondent then suspended the licence under Regulation 19(1) and continued the suspension post a personal hearing, leading to the writ petition.

2. The petitioner argued that the respondent erred in passing the suspension order under Regulation 19(1) instead of 20 or 22, leading to a miscarriage of justice. They contended that the suspension beyond 90 days was void and unnecessary, citing cases from Calcutta and Delhi High Courts to support their stance. The respondent defended the legality of the suspension, citing pending enquiries and the need for immediate action under Regulation 19(1).

3. The High Court analyzed the issues of suspension under Regulation 19(1) and the continuation of suspension post personal hearing under Regulation 19(2). It noted typographical errors in the Principal Commissioner's order but upheld the respondent's jurisdiction to suspend the licence based on pending enquiries and immediate action necessity, rejecting the petitioner's contentions.

4. The Court emphasized the discretion of the Commissioner to suspend a licence under Regulation 19, considering pending enquiries and revenue interests. It referenced previous judgments to support the respondent's decision, highlighting the importance of immediate action and the authority's perception of necessity in such cases.

5. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the respondent to proceed with further action under Regulation 20 within four months. It upheld the respondent's decision to suspend the licence, emphasizing the cogency of reasons provided and declining to interfere with the licensing authority's exercise of power under Regulation 19.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the suspension of the Customs Broker Licence, affirming the respondent's authority under Regulation 19(1) and the continuation of suspension post personal hearing. The Court emphasized the importance of pending enquiries, immediate action necessity, and the licensing authority's discretion in such matters, upholding the legality of the suspension and directing further action under Regulation 20 within a specified timeframe.