Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

% 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.

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.

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.