Calcutta High Court
M/S. Shipping & Clearing (Agents) Pvt. ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 2016
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
OD-2
WP No. 364 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
M/S. SHIPPING & CLEARING (AGENTS) PVT. LTD. & ANR.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE
Date : 29th April, 2016.
Appearance:
Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Debruap Bhatacharjee, Adv.
Mr. Dipanjan Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. S. B. Saraf, Adv.
Mr. K. K. Maity, Adv.
The Court : The petition pertains to an order of suspension confirmed under Regulation 19(2) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013. The initial order of suspension was made on May 15, 2015 and the subsequent order, after affording the petitioners a hearing, was made on June 24, 2015.
The petitioners had carried an earlier petition, WP No.1076 of 2015, against the show-cause notice and other notices received till then, but such petition was not entertained since the petitioners were entitled to prefer an appeal under the wide provision of Regulation 21 of the said Regulations. The petitioners have preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, but for the want of a judicial member in that forum in the city, appeals and related matters are not being taken up. The present petition has been carried to this Court in lieu of a stay application that could have been filed in the pending appeal before the CESTAT. 2
The department complains of the failure on the part of the petitioners herein to respond to a notice issued under Regulation 20(1) of the said Regulations of 2013. The department says that though Regulation 20, which provides for the procedure for revoking the licence of a Customs broker, envisages a six-month period for the revocation proceedings to be completed, the petitioners have stalled the process by failing to respond to the initial notice. The department says that if the petitioners had responded to the initial notice, an inquiry could have been set up and the matter may have even been concluded by now.
Since it is evident that the petitioners have waited for more than ten months in seeking a stay of the operation of an order of continuance of suspension under Regulation 19(2) of the said Regulations of 2013, no order is called for except to expedite the process under Regulation 20 of the said Regulations.
Accordingly, WP No.364 of 2016 is disposed of by permitting the petitioners a week from date to file the reply to the show-cause notice received, without prejudice to the petitioners' rights in the pending appeal before CESTAT. The department will thereafter take appropriate steps to complete the revocation proceedings within three months of the receipt of the reply to the show-cause notice from the petitioners. The department will be at liberty to refuse all prayers of adjournment made by or on behalf of the petitioners.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) kc.