TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 240
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....016. 2. By this Appeal, the Appellant has raised following questions of law : '(i) Whether the CESTAT could entertain any Appeal against an order dated 26-10-2015 of the Principal Commissioner of Customs, APSC which had already merged, after the prescribed process of representative appeal, with the Order of the Chief Commissioner of Customs Mumbai Zone III dated 14.09.2016, especially when the Appeal against such Order of the Chief Commissioner was voluntarily withdrawn by the same Appellant and no further remedy was sought against such order? (ii) Whether the CESTAT has jurisdiction to entertain any Appeal against an Order of the Principal Commissioner under regulations 14(1) of the Courier Import & Export (Clea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e license of the Respondent to act as an Authorised Courier was suspended. Show-cause notice was issued on 12 December 2014 to all concerned including Respondent under the provisions of section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. Further investigation was done by Air Intelligence Unit. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 19 March 2015 under Regulation 14 of the Regulations to show cause why the registration granted to the Respondent be not cancelled, why forfeiture of security should not be ordered and why penalty should not be imposed. Thereafter the Principal Commissioner of Customs by Order dated 27 November 2015 cancelled the registration to operate as an Authorised Courier in terms of the Regulations. 4. The Respondent made a represent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner or Commissioner of anywhere else, which in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner renders him unfit to transact any business in the Customs Station. Provided that no such revocation shall be made unless a notice has been issued to the Authorised Courier information him the grounds on which it is proposed to revoke the registration and he is given an opportunity of making a representation in writing and a further opportunity of being heard in the matter, if so desired. Provided further that, in case the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be considers that any of such grounds against an Authorised Courier shall not be established prima facie without an inquiry in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cannot be accepted. The Tribunal has entertained the appeal against the Order-In-Original relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Customs vs. Bombino Express Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (13) G.S.T.L. 52 (Bom.). In this case also an identical argument was advanced. The Appellant in this case also had approached the Tribunal after rejection of the representation. In the case of Principal Commissioner of Customs vs. Bombino Express Pvt. Ltd., objection was raised to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal on the ground that there was merger of the order passed under representation with the Order-In-Original and thereafter no appeal should have been entertained by the Tribunal. This was rejected by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... As far as registration of authorised courier is concerned, that aspect is dealt with by Regulation 8. There is scrutiny of applications by the Commissioner of Customs in terms of Regulation 9 and then, the registration is granted in exercise of powers of registration under Regulation 10. There are compliances to be made and particularly of execution of bond and furnishing of security. By Regulation 12, it is stated that a courier, who is registered under Regulation 10 or had intimated in form 'A' to the Commissioner of Customs having jurisdiction over the Customs Station from where he has to transact the business, shall furnish a bond and security as specified in Regulation 11 for each Customs Station. The obligation of authorised....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this Court. Therefore, one opportunity being provided in the scheme of the law to the aggrieved courier does not cause serious prejudice to the Revenue. More so, when it can always approach this Court against the orders of the Tribunal." The Division Bench held that what is provided in the Regulation 14(2) is a representation and ultimately the remedy of appeal is available under the Customs Act, 1962 and rejection or otherwise of such representation will not take away the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the appeal from Order-In-Original. In the present case the Appellant has withdrawn the appeal but if there is no merger and what is decided is only a representation, then withdrawal of the appeal will also fall within the ambi....