Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.4 He would submit that the show-cause notice was issued to them for imposing penalty under Section 114AA and Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. He would read the allegation in the notice for revocation of Courier Registration under Regulation 10 and 14 of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 as amended (page 134, para 12).
3.5 After drawing our attention to the notice issued (annexed at 134 as Ex-17) he would submit that reading of paragraph No.4 would indicate that paragraph 1 of the show-cause notice at page No. 61, the findings are same. On reading paragraph 12, he would said the paragraph indicates that the clandestine clearance of silver jewellery was effected by active involvement of two operational staff of M/s Aramex Pvt. Ltd., namely Shri Hitesh Narayandas Fofandi and Shri Ravi Sahebrao Kadam in connivance with Shri Hemant Badola and Shri Rahul Vishwanath Khamkar. He would take us through the paragraph 14 wherein specific omission and commission on the part of the appellant has been narrated for directing them to show cause as to why courier licence should not be revoked.

3.10 He would take us through the Courier Imports and Exports Regulations, 1998 (herein after referred as Courier Regulations) more specifically to the obligations of appellant as per the Regulation 13.

3.11 He would read the Customs Broker Regulation, 1984 and submit that in the Regulation 29(7), there is a specific provision holding the Custom House Agents licence holder is responsible for the acts of omission and commission of their employees. In the 2nd Regulation of 2004 it is his submission that Regulation 19(8) and CHA Regulation 13, Regulation No. 17 (a), it is provided that the CHA is responsible for the acts of his employees.

(ix) S. R.Sale U Co. Vs. CC (General), Mumbai, 2013 (295) E.L.T. 653 (Bom.), and
(x) A. Vasan & Sons Vs. Union of India, 2009 (238) E.L.T. 217 (Bom.)

5. It is seen that in none of the above decisions relied upon by the Revenue, the question of maintainability was an issue in respect of any Appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs as an Adjudicating Authority, under Regulation 10 of Courier (Import & Export) Regulations, 1998, which were notified by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, in ' exercise of powers conferred under Section 157 of the Customs Act, 1962. In Express Handling Worldwide (supra) the -appeal was preferred against the order passed by the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai on a representation filed by the Appellant, and not against order passed under Regulation 10, by the Commissioner of Customs as an Adjudicating Authority. In DHL Express India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court refused to exercise its extraordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction against suspension of courier licence. In Bombino Express Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dismissed their writ petition, without deciding any such issue of 'maintainability', as the same was neither raised, nor was under consideration of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. In the matter of Transit Freight Forwarders (supra), the Hon'ble Kerala High Court was not inclined to exercise their extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and found it fit and proper to relegate the Petitioner therein to avail remedy suggested by the Counsel appearing for the Petitioner therein, as provided under Regulation 14(2). Therefore, even the said order dated 10.04.2013 is not an authority on the issue of maintainability of the instant appeal. All the other judgments / orders of the Tribunal and of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court were in the context of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulation, in the context of Orders issued under Section 146 of the Customs Act, 1962. None of them involved the issue of maintainability of appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs as an Adjudicating Authority, under Regulation 10 of Courier Import & Export Regulations, 1998, notified by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, in exercise of powers conferred under Section of the Customs Act, 1962.

7. This view taken by us is binding on us. The said judgment has not been set aside with any finding that no appeal lies against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs as an Adjudicating Authority, under Regulation 10 of Courier (Import & Export) Regulations, 1998, which were notified by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, in ' exercise of powers conferred under Section 157 of the Customs Act, 1962. On plain reading of Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, we find that as the order has been passed by the Commissioner of Customs as an adjudicating authority, this appeal lies before this Tribunal. The adjudicating authority is also defined under Section 2(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 which means an authority competent to pass any order or decision under this Act. It is very clear from the reading of the regulations that they were enacted under the powers of Section 157 of the Customs Act, 1962 for furtherance of activity under the Said Act. No judgment to the contrary deciding the issue of maintainability in light of these statutory provisions and definitions, which were considered in the case of Bombino (supra), has been produced. Moreover, the vide the impugned Adjudication Order the Commissioner as an Adjudicating Authority has imposed penalty under Section 158(2)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. None of the judgments relied upon by the Respondent hold that penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority under a provision of Customs Act, 1962 cannot be challenged in Appeal before this Tribunal. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the request for referring the matter to a larger bench. We therefore have no hesitation in holding that the appeal is maintainable as per the ratio laid down in Bombino (supra).