DELTA LOGISTICS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner has challenged the validity of an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs on 7 July 2011 by which the Customs House Agents' Licence of the Petitioner has been revoked in exercise of powers conferred by Regulation 22(7) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004. The licence of the Petitioner was suspended by the Commissioner of Customs and on 29 October 2009, a chargesheet was issued containing four Article of Charges. On 23 December 2010, the Enquiry Officer exonerated the Petitioner of the charges. The Petitioner thereupon filed representations before the Commissioner of Customs on 6 January 2011 and 18 February 2011 in respect of the enquiry report. By his order dated 7 July 2011, the Commissioner of Customs passed an order by which he differed with the report of the Enquiry Officer and ordered revocation of the licence.

(2.) The contention of the Petitioner is that the Commissioner could not have differed with the report of the Enquiry Officer in view of a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the Commissioner of Customs vs, Rajan Virji & Co.1 In that case, the Division Bench, while construing the provisions of Regulation 22 held that where an enquiry report of the Assistant Commissioner is not to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, Regulation 22 does not make any provision for disagreement by the Commissioner. In that view of the matter, the Division Bench held as follows: "On the above premise, we have no hesitation to record that in the entire regulation there is no power or 1 Customs Appeal 25 of 2006, decided on 27 January 2010. authority to the Commissioner to disagree with the report of the enquiry officer. ... Had there been any power to disagree, we would have remanded this matter to the Commissioner for consideration afresh since the findings recorded by the Tribunal revolves around breach of principles of natural justice which can always be cured by affording an opportunity afresh. However, on deeper consideration we found that no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter to the Commissioner for consideration afresh, since we could not locate any power or authority in favour of the Commissioner to disagree with the report of the enquiry officer." Regulation 22 provides as follows:

(3.) The regulation lays down the procedure for suspending or revoking a licence under Regulation 22. Clause (1) of the Regulation requires the Commissioner to issue a notice stipulating the grounds on which the licence is proposed to be revoked or suspended. Pursuant thereto, the Customs House Agent is given an opportunity to submit his written statement of defence to the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner nominated by the Commissioner. Thereupon, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs has to enquire into the grounds which are not admitted under clause (2). Upon the conclusion of the enquiry, the Assistant Commissioner prepares a report recording his findings under clause (5). Under Clause (6) the Commissioner furnishes a copy of the report and requires the CHA to submit his representation against the findings of the Assistant Commissioner. Thereafter, the Commissioner under clause (7) is empowered to pass such orders as he deems fit after considering the report and the representation. Against the order passed by the Commissioner, the Customs House Agent who is aggrieved has a right of appeal to the CESTAT.