TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 74
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Order more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the impugned orders dated 24.03.2023 and 11.04.2023 issued by the respondent is illegal, arbitrary, capricious and in violation of Regulation 16 of CBIR 2018 and Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to quash the impugned orders dated 24.03.2023 and 11.04.2023 issued by the respondent...." 2. Petitioner's case in a nutshell 2.1. Petitioner company is a Customs Broker with Licence No. 02/2011, which assists importers in Customs clearance of imports and exports, engages in trading of various goods and, imports goods from other countries for sale in India. All activities of the Company are looked after by the Managing Director and no other Directors are convers....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2.5. Vide the suspension order, a personal hearing was fixed on 04.04.2023 at 11:30 under Regulation 16 (2) of CBLR, 2018 and any written representation should reach before the date of hearing. Petitioner made several representations vide letters dated 05.04.2023, 06.04.2023, and 10.04.2023 requesting Commissioner of Customs to postpone the date of personal hearing as the Managing Director of the petitioner was in judicial remand and the other Directors or CEO of the company are only nominal and are not conversant with the procedure and nature of work. 2.6. Though time was requested till 20.04.2023 on the ground that the Managing Director would be released on bail, without hearing the petitioner company, the 1st respondent issued impugne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. v. Union of India 2015 (321) E.L.T. 620 (Cal) 3.2. Further, it is submitted that on examination it has been found by the authorities certain undeclared cargo of Areca nuts were stuffed weighing about 46.640 MT against the declared quantity of 56 MTS of Dries Dates in the Bill of Entry. Normally the importer or Customs Broker are different, but, in the instant case, they are one and the same. The Managing Director of the petitioner company voluntarily gave his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act and referred the name of one Vivek Raj from Mumbai, who is suspected to be conduit in this case. 3.3. The 1st respondent duly followed the procedure under the Customs Act and passed the impugned order. Opportunity of personal hear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are supposed to pass orders either for revocation or continuation of suspension. He would further submit that despite making several requests to postpone the hearing as the Managing Director of the Petitioner was in judicial custody, the 1st respondent arbitrarily passed the order for continuation of suspension. As such, opportunity should be given to the petitioner to submit their objections. 7. Per contra, Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned standing counsel would submit that the impugned orders are on correct lines and that the 1st respondent passed the impugned order after duly following the procedure under the Customs Act. Moreover, in case the Petitioner is aggrieved, it must avail the statutory remedies and prays to dismiss the writ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....023. Accordingly, I am proceeding to examine whether the suspension against the Customs Broker needs to be continued or revoked in view of the case pending investigation against them." 10. The order referred supra is vivid on the point that the Managing Director of the petitioner company was in judicial remand. Though repeated requests were made by the petitioner company, their request was rejected on the ground that the legal time frame fixed under the CBLR, 2018 would lapse. The Managing Director of the company could not have any opportunity to submit his explanation to the notice issued by the authorities and while he was in judicial custody, the impugned order was passed. We are of the view that it is nothing but gross violation of p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7.3 Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged. 27.4 An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law. 27.5 When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the reme....