CSK Shipping Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (General)

C J Mathew, Member (T)

This appeal of M/s CSK Shipping Private Ltd, against order [order no. 37/2022-23 dated 31st October 2022] of Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), lies within the narrow compass of justifiability of suspension in exercise of authority under regulation 16 of Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2018.

The operations of appellant, holder of ‘customs broker ‘licence no. 11/1765, was suspended on the basis of ‘offence report’ dated 2nd September 2022 in relation to several non-compliances, and misdeclaration, in bill of entry no. 9736332/26.07.2022 filed on behalf of M/s Dinesh Enterprises. The impugned order of continuation was issued after suspension followed by ‘post-decisional hearing’ of 29th September 2022.

We have heard Learned Counsel for appellant who questions the applicability of the provision for ‘suspension’ as the circumstances enumerated therein are lacking in the present instance. It is a further contention of his that the alleged offences in relation to the goods are not attributable to any breach of obligation by appellant. Learned Authorized Representative cited the several facts and breaches in the impugned order to urge dismissal of the appeal.

As the issue lies within the narrow compass supra, it would not be proper for us to examine the plethora of facts and allegations contained in the order of suspension. Furthermore,

‘16. Suspension of license.—

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in regulation 14, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs may, in appropriate cases where immediate action is necessary, suspend the license of a Customs Broker where an enquiry against such Customs Broker is pending or contemplated:

Provided that where the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs may deem fit for reasons to be recorded in writing, he may suspend the license for a specified number of Customs Stations.

(2) Where a license is suspended under sub-regulation (1), the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, shall, within fifteen days from the date of such suspension, give an opportunity of hearing to the Customs Broker whose license is suspended and may pass such order as he deems fit either revoking the suspension or continuing it, as the case may be, within fifteen days from the date of hearing granted to the Customs Broker:

Provided that in case the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, passes an order for continuing the suspension, further procedure thereafter shall be as provided in regulation 17.’ is abundantly clear about the restricted scope of its application.

No case has been made out in the impugned order that continued operation of the appellant as ‘customs broker’ would prejudice public interest or jeopardizing the investigations. The decision to suspend the licence was taken on 19th September 2022 which is more than a month after the impugned goods had been seized; moreover, statement of responsible person in the appellant-company was also recorded well before such suspension and there is nothing contained therein that could have prompted such apprehension.

Many months have passed since the impugned order and the timeframe prescribed for initiation of proceedings had also elapsed in the meanwhile. Learned Authorized Representative has not been able to shed any light on such proposal. One of the essential conditions for legitimize suspension is the intent to do so. The impugned order appears to have been issued without deliberating on such intent.

For the above reasons, we set aside the impugned order and direct revocation of suspension of the licence with immediate effect.