Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Commissioner Of Customs (Airport & ... vs Transworld Cargo & Travels on 10 March, 2023

Author: Vibhu Bakhru

Bench: Vibhu Bakhru

                   $~2
                   *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                   +      CUSAA 207/2019
                          COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
                          (AIRPORT & GENERAL)                 ..... Appellant
                                        Through: Mr Ajit Kumar Kalia, Senior
                                                   Standing Counsel with Mr
                                                   Abhinav Kalia, Advocate.
                                        versus
                          TRANSWORLD CARGO & TRAVELS          ..... Respondent
                                        Through: Mr Prem Ranjan Kumar with
                                                   Mr Abhishek, Advocates.
                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
                                        ORDER

% 10.03.2023

1. The Revenue has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 30.10.2018 passed by the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter 'CESTAT'), whereby the appellant's appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (hereafter 'Commissioner') under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (hereafter 'the CBLR') was rejected on the ground that the said appeal is not maintainable.

2. The respondent is a custom broker holding a Custom Broker License, which is valid up to 27.08.2022. The action against the petitioner was taken in the context of allegations regarding fraudulent import of goods (tyre scrap) by a company known as 'M/s Tinna Rubber and International Ltd.'. The respondent had filed the Bills of Entry for the said import. One of the allegations against the said importer was that it had forged the customs copy of the Bills of Entry.

3. In view of the Offence Report dated 20.02.2018, the Commissioner commenced proceedings for taking punitive action against the respondent under the CBLR, 2013. By an order dated 23.02.2018, the Commissioner passed an Order-in-Original suspending the respondent's Custom Broking License with immediate effect. However, subsequently, by an order dated 16.03.2018, the Commissioner revoked the said order dated 23.02.2018.

4. The Revenue filed an appeal against the said order dated 16.03.2018 under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, before the learned CESTAT.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that the said appeal was preferred after following the procedure under Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962.

6. In the aforesaid context, the Revenue has projected the following question for consideration:

"(i) Whether the Ld. CESTAT is right in law in holding that the right to prefer an appeal under Section 129A or 129D of the Customs Act, 1962 against an order passed under Regulations 21 or 23 of the Custom Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 is available only to a Custom Broker (hereinafter "CB")."

7. In terms of Regulation 21 of the CBLR, 2013, an appeal against the order of the Commissioner is available only to the Custom Broker and not to the Revenue. The question whether an appeal by the Revenue would be maintainable is covered against the Revenue, by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Customs (General) v.

Falcon India: CUSAA No. 278/2018, decided on 10.10.2018. The said decision was also followed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Customs (General) v. D.S. Cargo Agency:

CUSAA No.233/2019, decided on 21.09.2022. The Court had held that, CBLR was a complete code. Further, the expression "any person aggrieved" as used in Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 would not include Revenue insofar as any order passed by the Commissioner of Customs under the CBLR, 2013 is concerned.

8. We find no reason to differ from the said decisions.

9. In view of the above, the question of law, as projected by the Revenue, is squarely covered against the Revenue by the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Customs (General) v. Falcon India (supra) and Commissioner of Customs (General) v. D.S. Cargo Agency (supra).

10. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J AMIT MAHAJAN, J MARCH 10, 2023 RK Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:15.03.2023