Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 127
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
VINEET KOTHARI, R. SURESH KUMAR, JJ.
The Commissioner of Customs, VIII Commissionerate, Chennai - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Freight Field (Madras) Pvt., Ltd., Chennai - Respondent
C.M.A. No. 1746 of 2019
Decided On : 13-03-2020
For the Appellant:Aparna Nandakumar, Advocate. For the Respondent:S. Murugappan, Advocate.
Headnote:
Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 - Regulation 21 (1) (b) - Customs Act, 1962 - Section 130 - Customs Law or any other law - While so on specific intelligence information, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Officials - Revenue found that though goods declared under the Shipping Bill was 22 sets of grinding stones and milling stones together with rods contained in stainless steel cylinders of the grinder, on the detailed examination of the handles it was found that, the handle had a cavity which was plastered and on removal of the plastered portion, a polythene bag containing white powder was found concealed. In all Kgs of white coloured powder suspected to be Ketamine Hydrochloride” were seized - Held, Agree with the said view taken by one of us in the said Judgment of the Karnataka High Court and we hereby reiterate and amplify the said view - Even though we can make further our reasons and justification for interfering with the order of the CESTAT impugned herein by exploring the merits of the case, but we refrain ourselves from doing so as that would cause prejudice to the parties before CESTAT since the CESTAT has not so far decided anything on merits - In view of aforesaid Judgment of the Karnataka High Court which we affirm and agree and in view of the reasons stated herein above court are of the opinion that, no party in an adjudicating proceedings can be rendered remediless by way of appeal and if any such contrary view is taken by Courts of law, that will be detrimental to basic structure as enshrined in our Constitution, i.e. Judicial review - Therefore our conclusion in this regard is fully forfeited by the aforesaid reason also - Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Appeals filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, against the Final Order No.41695/2018, dated 31.05.2018 in Appeal Nos.C/194/2012-DB on the file of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai - 6.)
R. Suresh Kumar, J.
1. This Appeal has been filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the Final Order No.41695/2018, dated 31.05.2018 made in Appeal No.C/194/2012-DB by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Chennai (in short “CESTAT”)
2. The brief facts which are required to be noticed for disposal of this Appeal are as follows :
(i) That the respondent was a licensee under Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 (in short “CHALR, 2004”). Under the licence, the respondent/licensee can handle clearing and forwarding activities.
(ii) While so, on specific intelligence information, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Officials (DRI) inspected the Shipping Bill No.3245398, dated 26.08.2006 at the Chennai Air Cargo complex filed by the respondent/licensee on behalf of the Exporter M/s. India Lanka General Impex, Chennai and the consignee M/s. Quick Cargo (HK) Ltd.,
(iii) On such inspection, the Revenue found that, though the goods declared under the Shipping Bill was 22 sets of grinding stones and milling stones together with rods contained in 24 stainless steel cylinders of the grinder, on the detailed examination of the handles, it was found that, the handle had a cavity which was plastered and on removal of the plastered portion, a polythene bag containing white powder was found concealed. In all 10.565 Kgs of white coloured powder suspected to be “Ketamine Hydrochloride” were seized.
(iv) Thereafter the said white powder was tested in the Laboratory and was declared that, it was “Ketamine Hydrochloride”, which was a prohibited item. Therefore the Revenue initiated action against the exporter and also against the respondent/licensee. Initially the Customs Broker Licence of the respondent/licensee was suspended by order dated 02.03.2007 by the office of the Commissioner of Customs of Chennai Commissionerate, Customs House, Rajaji Bhawan, Chennai. However the said suspension order of the licence of the respondent was revoked by further order of the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, dated 25.04.2007. The reason for such revocation of suspension of the licence was that, the suspension of licence was made after eight months and therefore since it was belatedly made, taking clue from decisions of the higher Courts of law, such an action claimed to have been taken by the Revenue, thereby the suspension of Customs Broker licence of the respondent was revoked accordingly.
(v) Thereafter on 15.05.2007, the Appellant/Revenue issued show cause notice under CHALR, 2004, where the following show cause was sought for :
“9. Hence, the CHA is called upon to show cause to Shri.A.Kalyanasundaram, Asst. Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001 who has been appointed as the Inquiry Officer in this regard in terms of Regulation 23 of CHALR 1984 as to why the licence should not be cancelled and or security deposited by them forfeited under Regulation 21 (1) (b) of CHALR 1984 for non-compliance of the above said obligations. Written representations, if any, should reach the Inquiry Officer within 45 days from the date of receipt of this notice. They are also informed that their reply accompanied with documents on which they may rely upon, should reach the Inquiry Officer within the stipulated time. If no reply is received, it will be construed that they have no explanations to offer and the case will be decided on the basis of evidence available on records.
10. This notice is issued under Regulation 23 of CHALR 1984 which were framed in terms of Section 146 of Customs Act 1962 without prejudice to any other action that may be initiated against them under Customs Law or any other law for the time being f
