Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, SM-18, Ashok Deep Building, 4/24, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi, is holder of Custom House Agent license No. R-14/91 valid up to 12-2-1994 issued by Collector of Customs, New Delhi, for customs clearance work at Delhi Custom/station under the charge.

An enquiry is contemplated against the said Custom House Agent under Custom House Agent Licensing Regulation, 1984 in relation to the under-invoicing of consignments of Bill of Entry No. 240586, dated 10-8-1992, 241621, dated 14-8-1992, 242790, dated 22-8-1992, 244986, dated 2-9-1992 and 245492, dated 4-7-1992 imported at Air Cargo Unit at IGI Airport by one Shri Moti Lal Chandra a trader of Bhagirath Place, Delhi, by misusing the name and import-export code number of an actual user M/s. Trishul Industries, C-19, Sector-59, Noida and M-41, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi, and that M/s. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, the Custom House Agent, assisted in clearance of the same.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-regulation (1), the Collector may, in appropriate cases, where immediate action is necessary, suspend the license of a Custom House Agent where an enquiry against such agent is pending or contemplated."

"23. Procedure for suspending or revoking license under Regulation 21. - (1) The Collector shall issue a notice in writing to the Customs House Agent stating the grounds on which it is proposed to suspend or revoke the license and requiring the said a gent to submit within such time as may be specified in the notice not being less than forty-five days, to the Assistant Collector of Customs nominated by him, a written statement of defense and also to specify in the said statement whether the Custom House Agent desires to be heard in person by the said Assistant Collector of Customs.

(4) The Custom House Agent shall be entitled to cross-examine the persons examined in support of the grounds forming the basis of the proceedings and where the Assistant Collector of Customs declines to examine any person on the grounds that his evidence is not relevant or material, he shall record his reasons in writing for so doing.

(5) At the conclusion of the aforesaid inquiry, the Assistant Collector of Customs shall prepare a report of the inquiry recording his findings.

(6) The Collector of Customs shall furnish to the Custom House Agent a copy of the report of the Assistant Collector of Customs and shall require the Custom house Agent to submit within the specified period not being less than sixty days any representation that he may wish to make against the findings of the Assistant Collector of Customs.

(7) The Collector shall, after considering the report of the inquiry, and the representation thereon, if any, made by the Custom House Agent, pass such orders a he deems fit.

(8) Any Customs House Agent aggrieved by any decision or order passed under Regulation 21 or sub-regulation (7) of Regulation 23, may appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, to the Customs, Central Excise [and] Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal established under Section 129(1) of Customs Act, 1962."

8. It was admitted that procedure as prescribed under Regulation 23 was not valid as provided in sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 21. Ms. Bhatia, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that action had been taken under sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 21. But then the impugned order does not show that there was any necessity for the Collector of Customs to take immediate action suspending the license of the petitioner. The record produced before us also does not show that it was ever considered that it was a case where immediate action was necessary to suspend the license of the petitioner. Rather it took about 1-1/2 years for the Collector to take action purportedly under sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 21. Even today we have not been told as to what necessity had arisen after 1-1/2 years of the alleged illegality having been found to suspend the license of the petitioner. In normal circumstances license could be suspended only after resort to Regulation 23. This not having been done, the petitioner is rightly aggrieved. There is, thus, inherent lack of jurisdiction in proceeding under Regulation 21(2). Since the order itself is without jurisdiction this petition would be maintainable. It is not clear as to when the investigation would be complete, when show cause notice issued and adjudication completed and order passed. There appears to be no time limit for that. But then everything has to be done with utmost expedition and any unexplained delay will make the order void. Again that may not be relevant for our purpose as we find provisions of sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 21 have been violated. The petition is, therefore, allowed with costs. Order dated 7 January, 1994 suspending the Custom House Agent license of the petitioner is set aside. Counsel fee Rs. 1,000/-. We, however, make it clear that this order will not bar the authorities from taking action against the petitioner after following procedure under Regulation 23 of the Regulations.