TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 802
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cealed behind 80 dining sets. The declared importer and Customs House Agent were M/s. A.K. International, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh and the writ petitioner no. 1 herein respectively. During preliminary investigation it was found that the declared Customs House Agent namely the petitioner no. 1 did not actually act as the agent but allowed some unauthorised persons to use its licence and name for clearance of the subject consignment. (3) By an order dated 25th July, 2013 the Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Administration), Calcutta observed that an enquiry is contemplated against the petitioner no. 1 under regulation 20 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 and that pending completion of such enquiry, continuance of business transaction by the petitioner no. 1 is considered prejudicial to the interest of revenue warranting immediate action under regulation 19 (1) of the said Regulations to prevent further misuse of the customs brokers licence. With those observations, the Commissioner of Customs suspended the operation of the customs brokers license held by the petitioner no. 1 with immediate effect. (4) Inquiry was conducted against the petitioner-company and the sus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; "The Commissioner of Customs shall issue a notice in writing to the Customs Broker within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of offence report, stating the grounds on which it is proposed to revoke the license or impose penalty requiring the said Customs Broker to submit within 30 days to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs nominated by him, a written statement of defence and also to specify in the said statement whether the Customs Broker desires to be heard in person by the said Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs." (9) Mr. Chowdhury submitted that the offence report was received by the respondent authorities on 11th July, 2013 as would appear from the order of suspension of licence dated 25th July, 2013. However, the show cause notice was issued on 11th February, 2014 that is much beyond 90 days from the date of receipt of offence report. Hence, the show cause notice and all proceedings pursuant thereto are bad in law. In this connection, Mr. Chowdhury relied on a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of A.M. Ahamed & Co.-vs.- Commissioner of Cus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hati Carbon Ltd. Reported in 2012 (278) ELT 26. In that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when a revenue statute provides for a person aggrieved by an assessment thereunder, a particular remedy to be sought in a particular forum, in a particular way, it must be sought in that forum and in that manner and all the other forums and modes of seeking remedy are excluded. Mr. Saraf also relied on a division bench judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Custom-vs.-H. Kumar delivered in Special Civil Application No 1156 of 2002 wherein the Gujarat High Court, following the decision in the case of Union of India-vs.-Guwahati Karbon Ltd. (Supra) refused to entertain a writ application in view of availability of alternative remedy in the form of an appeal under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (12) On the point of natural justice, Mr. Sarf relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Kanungo & Co.-vs.-Collector of Customs reported in (1973) 2 SCC 438. Ld. Counsel relied on paragraph 12 of the judgement which is set out hereunder:- "12. We may first deal with the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice causing prejudice to the petitioner (please see Union of India-vs.-Guwahati Carbon Ltd. (Supra)). Prima facie, I do not find any patent illegality on the face of the order impugned or that principles of natural justice have been violated in any manner. However, these observations of mine are only tentative in nature since I am minded to dispose of the writ petition on the grounds stated hereinafter. (16) In Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd.-vs.-State of Orissa reported in (1983) 2 SCC 433, a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where an Act provides for a complete machinery to challenge an order of assessment, the impugned orders of assessment can only be challenged by the mode prescribed by the Act and not by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Where right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute must be availed of. (17) In the case of Whirlpool Corporation-vs.-Registrar of Trade Marks reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High....