2017 (3) TMI 160

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the petitioner seeks to move this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that, the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction. He submits that, the Commissioner of Customs did not have the requisite jurisdiction to pass the impugned order since the conditions precedent for assumption of jurisdiction under Regulation 20(2) of the Regulations of 2004 are absent. He submits that, Regulations 20(2) requires satisfaction of three conditions for the Commissioner to invoke the same. He emphasises that, the Commissioner must in appropriate cases, where immediate action is necessary, act within 15 days of the receipt of a report from the Investigating Authority. In the present case, he submits that, all such ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... present writ petition, the suspension of licence of the Customs House was set aside. Learned advocate for the department submits that, the order in original has to be considered as a report of the misdeeds of the petitioner. The show cause notice, which had ultimately culminated in the order in original, cannot be taken as a starting point, as the authorities were yet to decide finally on the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the show cause notice. The order in original is dated September 29, 2016 and the same was received by the respondent at Kolkata on December 19, 2016. Immediately thereafter the Authorities had invoked Regulation 20(2) of the Regulation of 2004 and had issued a temporary order of suspension. The petitio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 29, 2016 was received by the Kolkata Authorities on December 19, 2016. It had proceeded under Regulation 20(2) of the Regulation of 2004 immediately thereafter. No material has been produced before the Court to suggest that, the initial order of suspension under Regulation 20(2) of the Regulation of 2004 was not initiated within the stipulated period of 15 days on receipt of the order in original. The contention of the petitioner that the order in original cannot be considered as a report of the investigating authority is without any basis. The order in original has resulted from a show cause notice issued on the basis of an intelligence report. Regulation 20(2) does not say that, apart from an intelligence report, the authorities canno....