Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
S.N.M. Agency vs Commissioner Of Customs (General) on 13 January, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. II Appln.No.C/EH/99593/13 APPEAL No.C/89661/13 (Arising out of Order-in-Original Nos.15/2013 dated 30/08/2013 & 36/2013 dated 28/11/2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Honble Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :Seen of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :Yes authorities? ========================================
S.N.M. Agency Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General) Respondent Mumbai Appearance: Shri.B.R.Tripati, Advocate for appellant Shri.M.S.Reddy, Dy. Comm. (AR), for respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. P.R.Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Honble Mr.Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 13/01/2014 Date of Decision : 13/01/2014 ORDER NO Per: P.R.Chandrasekharan
The application for early hearing has been filed by M/s.S.N.M. Agency against the Order-in-Original Nos.15/2013 dated 30/08/2013 & 36/2013 dated 28/11/2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai, wherein he has prohibited the appellant to function as a Customs Broker within his jurisdiction, as per the provisions of Regulation 23 of CBLR, 2013 pending inquiry proceedings under Regulation 20. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us.
2. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that as per Regulation 21 of CBLR, 2013 a Customs broker, who is aggrieved by any order passed by the Commissioner of Customs under this Regulation, may prefer an appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, before this Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal is maintainable before this Tribunal. He further submits that the wordings of the CBLR, 2013 is different from its predecessor CHALR 2004. Under CHALR, 2004, under Regulation 22, only appeals against suspension or revocation under Regulations 20 or 22, as the case may be, could be heard by the Tribunal. However, in the present CBLR 2013, there is no restriction in hearing any order passed by the Commissioner of Customs and therefore, it is his contention that the appeal is maintainable before this Tribunal.
3. We have considered the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel very carefully.
4. Both the CHALR 2004 as also CBLR, 2013 have been framed under the powers conferred by the provisions of Section 146 of the Customs Act, 1962. The said section is reproduced herein below:
146. Custom house agents to be licensed.
(1) No person shall carry on business as an agent relating to the entry or departure of a conveyance or the import or export of goods at any customs- station unless such person holds a licence granted in this behalf in accordance with the regulations.
(2) The Board may make regulations for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this section and, in particular, such regulations may provide for-
(a) the authority by which a licence may be granted under this section and the period of validity of any such licence;
(b) the form of the licence and the fees payable therefor;
(c) the qualifications of persons who may apply for a licence and the qualifications of persons to be employed by a licensee to assist him in his work as an agent;
(d) the restrictions and conditions (including the furnishing of security by the licensee) subject to which a licence may be granted;
(e) the circumstances in which a licence may be suspended or revoked; and
(f) the appeals, if any, against an order of suspension or revocation of a licence, and the period within which such appeals shall be filed.
5. Clause (f) of sub-section (2) deals with the appeals. The said section specifically says that appeal against an order of suspension or revocation of a licence is only admissible if the Regulations so provide. Thus, there is no specific provision for providing in the Regulations appeal against an order of prohibition. Therefore, so long as the Section 146 (2) does not provide for appeal against an order of prohibition, it cannot be presumed that CBLR, 2013 provides for an appeal against the order of prohibition to be heard by this Tribunal. The entire CBLR, 2013 has been framed under the powers conferred under Section 146 (2). Therefore, the provisions of CBLR, 2013 cannot be interpreted in a such a way so as to over ride the provisions of Section 146 (2). In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the appeal against the order of prohibition does not lie before this Tribunal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not maintainable. Early hearing application also stands disposed of.
(Dictated in Court) (Anil Choudhary) Member (Judicial) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) pj 1 4