2017 (12) TMI 1461 - HC - Customs

Court denies Writ Petition challenging work ban, directs alternative remedies. Post-decisional hearing and dispute process emphasized.

The court declined to entertain the Writ Petition challenging the order prohibiting the petitioner from working in Customs Zones and surrendering Custom ... Maintainability of petition - prohibition of petitioner from working in all sections of the Mumbai Customs Zones I, II & III pending post-decisional hearing by the competent authority - Held that: - the petitioner has ample opportunities available in law to resist the action - also, the alternate and equally efficacious remedy of approaching the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal can be also availed of. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition should not be entertained - petition dismissed being not maintainable. Issues:Challenge to order passed by Principal Commissioner of Customs, Prohibition from working in Customs Zones, Surrender of Custom Passes, Entitlement to post-decisional hearing, Appealability of orders, Entertaining Writ Petition.Analysis:The judgment concerns a challenge to an order issued by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, which prohibited the petitioner from working in all sections of the Mumbai Customs Zones I, II & III pending a post-decisional hearing. The order also directed the surrender of all Custom Passes, causing concern for the petitioner's business operations. The respondent argued that the petitioner could present facts and seek exoneration during the post-decisional hearing, with the right to appeal the final order. The court expressed reluctance to entertain the Writ Petition due to the availability of alternative remedies, such as approaching the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.The petitioner's counsel highlighted the delayed receipt of the communication regarding the surrender of Custom Passes, while the respondent contended that the communication was served earlier. Despite the dispute, the court emphasized that the petitioner had legal avenues to challenge the action and should utilize the opportunity for a personal hearing by the concerned Commissioner and submit written representations within 15 days. The petitioner was permitted to dispute the allegations in the showcause notice and provide additional replies as necessary.Given the prohibition on the petitioner from operating as a Customs Broker, the court directed the Principal Commissioner at Chennai to expedite the proceedings and conclude them within two months from the petitioner's appearance. The judgment underscores the importance of availing statutory remedies and following due process in challenging administrative actions, emphasizing the role of post-decisional hearings and appellate mechanisms in resolving disputes related to Customs regulations.