2024 (10) TMI 578 - AT - Customs

Committee of Chief Commissioners cannot appeal licensing decisions under Section 129D of Customs Act 1962

Commissioner of Customs, Pune Versus Logic Transware (I) Pvt Ltd

CESTAT Mumbai dismissed an appeal filed by the Committee of Chief Commissioners under Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962 concerning breaches of ... Maintainability of appeals by the Committee of Chief Commissioners under Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962 - breaches of regulation 10 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018 - HELD THAT:- The order of the Tribunal in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS-NEW DELHI (AIRPORT AND GENERAL) VERSUS M/S. ENTIRE LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. [2024 (10) TMI 553 - CESTAT DELHI] by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIRPORT & GENERAL) VERSUS TRANSWORLD CARGO & TRAVELS [2023 (3) TMI 847 - DELHI HIGH COURT], held that such appeals by the licensing authority are not maintainable. This appeal has been initiated without authority of law and is consequently dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of appeals by the Committee of Chief Commissioners under Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The scope of appellate remedies under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018.3. The role and authority of the Commissioner of Customs in licensing and disciplinary actions against customs brokers.4. Applicability of general appellate provisions under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 to disciplinary actions under the CBLR.Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of Appeals by the Committee of Chief Commissioners:The primary issue examined was whether the Committee of Chief Commissioners, constituted under Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962, has the authority to appeal against its own orders. The Tribunal referenced previous decisions, including Commissioner of Customs (General) v. Kamal Clearing & Forwarding Pvt Ltd, which established that the licensing authority cannot appeal its own decisions under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 1994. The Tribunal emphasized that the entitlement to appeal is reserved for the customs brokers themselves, as per the special provisions of the Regulations and Section 146 of the Customs Act, 1962. This restriction is seen as a deliberate legislative intent to prevent the licensing authority from acting as an appellant against its own orders.2. Scope of Appellate Remedies under CBLR, 2018:The Tribunal discussed the regulatory framework designed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC) for customs brokers, which includes licensing, supervision, and termination. The Regulations specifically provide an appellate mechanism for customs brokers, allowing them to appeal against decisions detrimental to their licensed right to practice. The Tribunal reiterated that the licensing authority is not envisaged as an appellant under these Regulations, highlighting the absurdity of appealing against one's own decision. This framework aligns with the principle that only the aggrieved party, in this case, the customs brokers, should have the right to appeal.3. Role and Authority of the Commissioner of Customs:The Tribunal underscored the role of the Commissioner of Customs as the authority responsible for licensing customs brokers. The Commissioner acts as the 'master' to whom the customs broker owes its existence. The Tribunal pointed out that the Commissioner is best positioned to assess the impact of a broker's actions on the functioning of the Customs House and to take necessary disciplinary actions. The Tribunal emphasized that there is no higher authority envisaged to oversee the Commissioner's decisions regarding customs brokers, reinforcing the finality of the Commissioner's decisions in the absence of an appeal by the broker.4. Applicability of General Appellate Provisions under Section 129A:The Tribunal addressed the argument regarding the applicability of general appellate provisions under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, to disciplinary actions under the CBLR. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in SR Sale & Co v. Commissioner of Customs (General), which held that the specific appellate provisions in the Regulations are a deliberate restriction, and the general provisions of Section 129A cannot be invoked. The Tribunal further cited the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General) vs. Transworld Cargo & Travels, supporting the view that appeals by the licensing authority are not maintainable. The Tribunal concluded that the special provisions in the Regulations are intended to provide a self-contained code for the licensing and disciplinary control of customs brokers, distinct from the general appellate provisions.Conclusion:Based on the settled law and precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that it was initiated without the authority of law. The judgment reinforced the principle that the right to appeal in disciplinary matters involving customs brokers is reserved for the brokers themselves, and the licensing authority cannot appeal its own decisions. The Tribunal's decision aligns with the legislative intent to provide a distinct appellate mechanism for customs brokers under the CBLR, 2018.