SMILE SHIPPING SERVICES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a partnership firm. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs, CHA, Customs House, Chennai, issued a licence to the petitioner for Customs House Agent under Licence No. TUT-52/2005/CHA, dated 27-12-2004. In the course of the business of the petitioner, the petitioner filed two shipping bills on behalf of one M/s. Dhanalakshmi Exports, Chennai, for exporting Free Flowing Iodized Salt, during the month of December, 2009. The said consignments were to be exported through the Tuticorin Port Trust. But, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Tuticorin, on 24/25-12-2009, intercepted the goods and on a detailed examination, it was found that in the gunny bags containing iodized salt, polythene sacs containing Ketamine Hydrochloride were concealed in the iodized salt. They were recovered. The worth of seized Ketamine Hydrochloride was valued at Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. Based on these allegations, the Commissioner of Customs House, Tuticorin, by his proceedings in C. No. VIII/13/47/2004-CHA, dated 16-3-2010, suspended the Customs House Licence issued to the petitioner, in terms of Regulation 20(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and I have also perused the records, carefully.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was no immediate action to suspend the licence and thus the impugned order has been passed in the absence of any action which is immediately necessary, as provided in sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 20. He would further submit that after passing the order of suspension, no further action was taken under Regulation 22 of the Regulations and thus the order impugned has been allowed to be in force from 16-3-2010, in an arbitrary manner. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

(3.) In the counter filed by the respondent, it is stated that anyone who is aggrieved by the order made under Regulation 20 of the Regulations has to file only an appeal under sub-regulation (8) of Regulation 28 before the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, established under Section 129(1) of the Customs Act. In this case, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, the petitioner has not made any appeal at all to the Tribunal and thus the present writ petition is not at all maintainable. It is further contended that sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 20 was inserted by means of an amendment with effect from 8-4-2010; whereas the impugned order of suspension was passed on 16-3-2010 and as per the unamended Regulation, as it stood in force before 8-4-2010, there was no question of affording opportunity to the agent and to take a decision either to revoke the suspension or to continue the same. In the counter, it is further elaborated as to how the necessity arose to take action under sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 20, Thus, according to the respondent, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.