2018 (3) TMI 650 - AT - Customs

Revenue's Appeal Against Customs Brokers Order-in-Original Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the appeal by the Revenue against the Order-in-Original under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 was not maintainable. It ... Penalty under the provisions of Regulation 18 read with Regulation 20(7) and 22 of CBLR, 2013 for various acts of omission and commission - Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 - Held that: - the issue regarding right of the Revenue to file an appeal under CBLR, 2013 was specifically examined by the coordinate Bench in more than one occasions and concluded that in the presence of specific provision for CHA as well as no specific provision for the Revenue, such appeal is not contemplated or permissible under CBLR, 2013 on the part of the Revenue - appeal dismissed being not maintainable. Issues:1. Maintainability of the appeal by the Revenue against the Order-in-Original under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR, 2013).Analysis:The judgment revolves around the appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi, concerning a Customs House Agent (CHA) for violations under CBLR, 2013. The Revenue sought a higher penalty or revocation of the Respondent's license, arguing that the penalty imposed was inadequate for the alleged irregularities. The Respondent contended that the appeal by the Revenue was not maintainable, citing previous Tribunal decisions in similar cases like Aramex India Pvt. Ltd. and Naresh Jaisingh. The Respondent argued that CBLR, 2013 did not provide for an appellate remedy to the Revenue and that the maximum penalty for violations was limited to Rs. 50,000, as per the Litigation Policy under Section 131-A of the Customs Act, 1962.The Tribunal analyzed the legal provisions and precedents cited by both parties. It noted that previous decisions had established that CBLR, 2013 did not allow the Revenue to file an appeal against the order of the licensing authority. The Revenue attempted to rely on a Larger Bench decision in Gaurav Pharma Ltd. case, but the Tribunal clarified that the issue of Revenue's right to appeal under CBLR, 2013 was distinct and had been conclusively addressed in prior cases. The Tribunal emphasized that Section 129A of the Customs Act provided for appeals by aggrieved persons but did not extend this right to the Revenue in the context of CBLR, 2013. Therefore, based on the established legal interpretations and precedents, the Tribunal held that the appeal by the Revenue was not maintainable and subsequently dismissed it.In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the limitations on the Revenue's right to appeal under CBLR, 2013 and reaffirms the legal position established through previous Tribunal decisions. The analysis underscores the importance of specific legal provisions governing appeals in regulatory frameworks and highlights the significance of adhering to established legal interpretations in determining the maintainability of appeals in such cases.