TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 17
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulation'). 2. The following facts would suffice to consider the relief sought for in these writ petitions. An offence report was received by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai, from the Central Intelligence Unit, JNCH, Nhava Sheva, dated 23-12-2015, stating about the role played by the petitioner, a customs broker in attempted clearance of 10 export consignments of M/s. Redingote Overseas and M/s. Tulsi Impex to claim inadmissible drawback. The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai passed an order dated 13-4-2016, prohibiting the petitioner from working in all sections of the Mumbai Customs Zones I, II & III, with immediate effect, with a further direction to the pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onfirmed by order dated 30-5-2016, impugned in W.P. No. 19312 of 2016. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned orders are not tenable. It is further submitted that the respondent while passing the impugned order in Paragraph 16 therein, erred in making an observation that there is an typographical error in the order passed by the Principal Commissioner, Mumbai that instead of mentioning Regulation Nos. 19 & 20, it has been mentioned as Regulation Nos. 20 & 22 and this finding has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. Further, it is submitted that the order of suspension passed by the respondent to suspend the licence, dated 5-5-2016, beyond the period of 90 days is ab intio void and contrary to the provisions of the Regulations. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with by this Court in exercise of its powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution and this Court should not interdict the proceedings at this stage. In support of his contention, the learned counsel referred to the decisions in the cases of Sindhu Cargo Services Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore reported in 2006 (196) E.LT. 51 (Tri.-Chennai); Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore v. Sindhu Cargo Services Ltd., reported in 2007 (219) E.L.T., 87 (Mad.); Sri Kamakshi Agency v. Commissioner of Customs, Madras, reported in 2001 (129) E.L.T. 29 (Mad.); Commissioner of Customs, (General) v. Worldwide Cargo Movers., reported in 2010 (253) E.L.T. 190 (Bom.); and the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lation 19(1) of the Regulations, when the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai had forwarded his order, dated 13-4-2016, for necessary action under Regulation 20 and/or 22 of the Regulations. Secondly, as to whether the respondent was right in continuing the order of suspension after affording an opportunity to the petitioner in terms of Regulation 19(2) of the Regulations. 8. It may be true that the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, communicated his order dated 13-4-2016, to the respondent for necessary action in terms of Regulation No. 20 and/or 22 of the Regulations. According to the respondent, the order should have read as Regulations 19 & 20 and not Regulations 20 & 22 and it is a typographical error. 9. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., where immediate action is necessary, suspend the licence of a Customs Broker, where an enquiry against such agent is pending or contemplated. Admitting an enquiry is pending against the petitioner. Therefore, in the exercise of the discretion conferred on the Commissioner of Customs, the respondent has invoked his power and placed the petitioner's licence under suspension, in such circumstances should this Court interfere with exercise of such discretion. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision in the case of N.C. Singha & Sons v. UOI (supra), and submitted that the minimum that is required by the Commissioner to enable him to exercise such power of immediate suspension, is the spelling out of the circu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nless it is palpably absurd. I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed in Aditya Ganguly v. UOI & Ors. (supra), while considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 13. As pointed out, there is an enquiry initiated against the petitioner by the Mumbai Customs and prohibitory order has been passed against the petitioner under Regulation 23 and he has been given a post-decisional hearing and the matter is under consideration. The respondent while suspending the petitioner's licence invoking power under Regulation 19(1), has recorded a finding that a clear prima facie case exists against the petitioner and if they are allowed to continue to operate, it would be determental to the interest of revenue and theref....