TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1040
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, prohibiting the operation of the said Customs Broker M/s.Capricorn Logistics Pvt. Ltd., within the jurisdiction of the Bangalore Customs viz., Principal Commissionerate, Airport and Air Cargo Complex, Bangalore and Commissionerate of Customs, Bangalore City, with immediate effect and until further orders. 3. The reasons assigned by the Respondent- Commissioner of Customs in the impugned order are quoted from the relevant order itself as under:- " 5. In the light of the investigations conducted, admissions made by the persons connected with the exports it appeared that: a) The Proprietor of M/s Logo Trading Shri Mohamed Zubril and Partners of M/s Azomatrix Impex Shri Ravindranath Tagore Subr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e same for monetary consideration. e) It appears that the Customs Broker has not verified the KYC of the exporters and was not in touch with them, there by violating the obligations under the/not complying with the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013. f) The Customs Broker has not exercised due control over their employee and because of such failure, Shri. Prabhu gained access to customs area based on the H card given as employee of CB company and attended clearances and drawback process on behalf of the fraudulent exporters. 6.1 Regulation 11 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 reads as follows: 11. Obligations of Customs Broker. - A Customs Broker shall - (a) obtain an authoriz....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assist him after verifying their antecedent and identity..... (9) The Customs Broker shall exercise such supervision as may be necessary to ensure the proper conduct of his employees in the transaction of business and he shall be held responsible for all acts or omissions of his employees during their employment. 13.3 It is admitted by the Authorised Employee of Customs Broker M/s. Capricorn Logistics Pvt Ltd that they have not obtained the authorization from the exporter nor have they obtained KYC documents. Further, they were not in touch with the Exporter M/s. Trendy Knitz. It is also seen that their employee Shri. Prabhu had been acting on behalf of the other Exporters who were not their clients. The Customs Broker has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, in as much as, the impugned order has been passed by the Respondent-Commissioner of Customs without giving any notice and prior opportunity of hearing before passing the said order, the said order deserves to be quashed by this Court under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The aforesaid Regulations of 2013 namely, Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 vide Regulation No.21 provides for an alternative remedy by way of an appeal to such aggrieved Customs Broker under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) established under Section 129(1) of the Act. 6. To prevent evasion of customs duty and illegal duty draw backs, these Regulations have been frame....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... he is satisfied that such Customs Broker has not fulfilled his obligations under Regulations 11 or 17 in relation to work in that section or sections. 9. Thus, to secure the immediate result and prohibit any continuation of illegal activities, such authority has been vested with a power to take immediate action under Regulation 23 as aforesaid. The operative portion of the impugned order also shows that the said order is passed with immediate effect and until further orders. The said order is dated 13.11.2017. 10. The petitioner, in these circumstances, not only has an opportunity to show-cause and establish its innocence and compliance with the Regulations before the concerned authority itself even now, but has equal, adequate and e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t naught and the Courts in exercise of their extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should desist from doing so. 12. A lenient and conveniently held out tool of ground of natural justice cannot be used to protect those who have indulged in gross violation of Regulations and Rules and which has resulted in evasion of tax and duties and has caused revenue loss. On the face of it, this ground invoked in the writ jurisdiction, may appear to be attractive to exercise the discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but the malaise in such cases is indeed deep-rooted, where the Courts in its extraordinary jurisdiction, on the basis of the Affidavits only cannot even easily reach into. Such cases ....