The main legal point established in the judgment is the appealability of orders passed under Regulation 23 before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 129-A of the Act read with Regulation 21, emphasizing the importance of the appellate authorities in dealing with issues arising under the Customs Act and the Regulations.

1. The petitioner – M/s. Cargomar, a Customs Broker governed by the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter called ‘Act’ for short) and Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (‘Regulations of 2013’ for short) has filed this writ petition in this Court on 21/03/2016 aggrieved by the order passed by the Respondent – Principal Commissioner of Customs on 16/03/2016 under Regulation 23 of the aforesaid ‘Regulations of 2013’, prohibiting the petitioner M/s. Cargomar from operating within the jurisdiction of Bangalore Customs Division, with immediate effect and until further orders.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.G. Chidananda Urs has submitted before the Court that the said order of prohibition passed under the non obstante provision of Regulation 23 of the ‘Regulations of 2013’ deserves to be quashed by this Court as the same has been passed without giving any prior opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and it has virtually deprived the petitioner assessee of its source of livelihood by prohibiting it from operating in the jurisdiction of Respondent Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore Division.

3. He has submitted that the allegation of misdeclaration against the petitioner assessee on behalf of the importer, M/s.J.P. Traders, as made in the impugned order that the petitioner deliberately misclassified the goods under CTH 25202090 attracting the rate of duty at 5% as against the appropriate classification under CTH 68090000 attracting duty at the rate of 10% cannot be said to be a mis-declaration on the part of the petitioner, the Customs Broker and such declaration is made by the importer and therefore no offence was committed by the present petitioner to attract the consequence of “prohibition” under Regulation 23 and the impugned order, therefore, deserves to be quashed.

4. He has further submitted that Section 122-A of the Act contained in Chapter XIV dealing with the “Confiscation of Goods and Conveyances and Imposition of Penalties”, comprising of Sections 111 to 127 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides for adjudication procedure and inter alia Section 122-A provides that the Adjudicating Authority shall, in any proceedings under this Chapter or any other provisions of this Act, give an opportunity of being heard to a party in a proceedings, if the party so desires. Therefore in the absence of any prior notice and opportunity of hearing, the impugned order under Regulation 23 deserves to be quashed being in breach with the principles of natural justice.

5. On the question of maintainability of the present writ petition, on account of availability of an alternative remedy by way of an appeal against the impugned order, Annexure B dated 16/03/2016 under Regulation 23 of ‘Regulations of 2013’, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before the Court that the relevant provisions of Section 129-A of the Act which provides for Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal, only a decision or order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs as an ‘Adjudicating Authority’ is appealable and since presently the impugned order of prohibition under Regulation 23 is not an Adjudication Order or an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, therefore, he submitted that the remedy by way of an Appeal under Section 129-A of the Act against the said order is not available to the petitioner.

6. Mr. Urs has further submitted before the Court that the ‘Regulations of 2013’ have been enacted under the powers conferred on the Central Government under Section 146 of the Act. Section 146 of the Act provides for Licence for Customs Brokers and Section 146(1) of the Act provides that “no person shall carry on the business as a Customs Broker relating to the entry or departure of a conveyance or the import or export of goods at any customs station unless such person holds a licence granted in this behalf in accordance with the Regulations” and Section 146 (2) empowers the Board of Customs t