TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 533
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wing the procedure prescribed in regulation 23 of the Regulations. Consequent upon detection of shipment of goods by M/s Aar Cee International filed through the licencee in June 2002, the license was suspended and the charge-sheet issued to the licensee culminated in impugned order-in-original no. 40/2007 dated 24^th December 2007. 2. The prescribed enquiry found the five charges levelled against the licensee to be proved and, after grant of opportunity of responding and to be heard in person, the revocation and forfeiture was ordered by Commissioner of Customs (General), New Custom House, Mumbai. The appellant was found to have breached regulation 14 (a) requiring possession of authorisation from the exporter, of regulation 14(b) by ope....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for a period of almost five years. In Commissioner of Customs (General) v. Sainath Clearing Agency [2015 (326) ELT 548 (Bom)], the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay approved, in the peculiar circumstance of that case, of the decision of the Tribunal to restrict the period of revocation of the license. In Manilal Patel Clearing and Forwarding Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customers [2013 (294) ELT 472 (Tri-Mumbai)], it was held that the penalty visited upon the appellant should not be any different from that imposed, in similar circumstances, upon other similarly placed agents. Likewise in Damodar J Malpani v. Collector of Central Excise [2002 (146) ELT 483 (SC)], the Hon'ble Supreme Court was inclined to find fault with the Tribunal for having disr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent the administrative authority of the licensing authority but also may encourage a casual approach by other licensees. 6. We are convinced by the submissions of Learned Authorised Representative that the operation and control of Customs House Agents are best left to the judgement of Commissioner of Customs and that no intervention in the magnitude of penalty, save in obvious cases of being disproportionate or for violation of principles of natural justice and breach of procedure as prescribed in law is warranted. The decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Customs (General) v. Worldwide Cargo Movers [2010 (253) ELT 190 (Bom)] lays down the scope of intervention thus '28. In our view, the Tribunal has committed a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the order dated 17-1-2006 passed by the appellant-Commissioner of Customs is restored.' 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court too echoes the scope of intervention by other authorities in matters pertaining to Customs House Agents thus 4. Relying on the statutory provisions, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to confirm, modify or annul the decision. There can be no cavil over the issue that the Tribunal can dislodge or confirm or modify the order. The vesting of jurisdiction with the Tribunal by the statute is beyond any pale of controversy. The dispute pertains to exercise of such jurisdiction. When a jurisdiction is exercised, it has to be exercised in accordance with law, regard being ha....