TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 833
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioners:- (2) At all material times, the petitioner no. 1 operated as a Customs House Agent. On 21 June, 2004 the Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta issued a CHA licence No. M-41 to the petitioner firm under Regulation 10(1) of CHALR, 1984 with validity period up to 2014. On the basis of such licence the petitioner firm carried on customs house agency business in Calcutta and Bombay. (3) The petitioner no. 2 is a senior partner of the petitioner no. 1. The petitioner no. 2 also carries on business of import and export under the name and style of M/s. Prayag International and holds an Import and Export Code (in short 'IEC') granted by the competent authority. (4) In the year 2008 as proprietor of M/s. Prayag International, the petitioner no. 2 imported a container laden with assorted confectionary items (chewing gum) at the port of Bombay and filed bill of entry No. 987786 dated 2 September, 2008 in his capacity as a CHA as a partner of the petitioner firm for assessment and clearance of the imported goods. The said goods were detained by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) on the ground that the said import was made for one Ravi Kumar for monetary consideration.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the Letter of Authority from the importer for the import of the aforesaid goods at the Mumbai Port. However, the Enquiry Officer did not give due consideration to the documents submitted by the petitioner no. 1 and held all the charges to be proved by his enquiry report dated 17 July, 2013. (10) The Deputy Commissioner of Customs, CHA Section, Customs House, Calcutta by his letter dated 17 July, 2013 forwarded a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner firm with liberty to make representation in respect of the enquiry report. The petitioner duly submitted the representation specifically contending, inter alia, that the enquiry proceeding has been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. (11) By the impugned order, the respondent no. 2 mechanically upheld the findings of the Enquiry Officer in respect of the charges relating to violation of Regulation 13(a) of the CHALR, 2004, without any application of mind. Learned Counsel for the petitioners challenged the order of the respondent no. 2 on the following grounds:- (i) The respondent no. 2 upheld the finding of the Enquiry Office to the effect that the petitioners did not submit the Letter o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. Following its earlier decision in the case of Whirlpool Corporation ((1998) 8 SCC 1), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that in an appropriate case in spite of availability of an alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies: (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. (13) Relying on the aforesaid decisions learned Counsel submitted that the respondents being statutory authorities have not acted in accordance with the provisions of the statute and in defiance of judicial procedure and in total violation of principles of natural justice causing serious prejudice to the petitioners, thus, warranting interference by this Court. Contention of the respondents:- (14) Although a detailed affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 giving particulars of the alleged irregularities and illegalit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bon Ltd.) (supra). Prima facie, I do not find any ex facie illegality in the order under challenge nor violation of the principles of natural justice. The order of the Commissioner impugned in this application is a well-reasoned order which has been passed after discussing the evidence on record. The petitioners were given full opportunity of explaining/refuting the charges of irregularity/illegality levelled against them. The Writ Court does not sit in appeal over the decision of an authority and will not go into the question of sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence on the basis whereof the order has been passed. In my opinion, it cannot be said that the order is passed on the basis of no evidence and is therefore perverse. However, I make it clear that these observations of mine are only prima facie in nature since I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition on the ground stated hereinafter. (18) I am fully conscious that availability of an efficacious alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition. The High Court, having regard to the facts of a case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Cour....