ADITYA GANGULY Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Customs broker. Customs brokers were previously known as Customs House Agents and such brokers are governed by the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs under Sec. 146(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The matter here pertains to the suspension of the petitioner's licence as a Customs broker. The petitioner alleges that the order of suspension is without jurisdiction and betrays the closed mind of the licensing authority and, as such, the usual remedy of a post -decisional hearing would be an exercise in futility. The petitioner also asserts that since an adverse order had been passed in connection with an import transaction of a client of the petitioner, the petitioner does not expect a fair deal either at the post -decisional hearing or in any possible appeal that the petitioner may prefer under Regulation 21 of the said Regulations of 2013.

(2.) The petitioner acted as the Customs broker for one Sachar International of Delhi and filed a bill of entry dated February 9, 2015 for clearance of a consignment of automotive parts imported from the United Arab Emirates under an airway bill. According to the petitioner, the goods were inspected at the airport and cleared by the Customs authorities, but they were subsequently apprehended by officers of the Customs Preventive Commissionerate and put to check at the cargo unit of the Delhi Airport.

(3.) The order -in -original dated February 26, 2016 passed by an Additional Commissioner (Preventive) pursuant to a show -cause notice of July 29, 2015 observed that on the examination of the goods it was found that branded automotive parts of, inter alia, BMW, Mercedes and Toyota were included in the consignment though no brand or model of the automotive parts had been declared by the importer. Further, goods in excess of the declared quantity were discovered in the consignment. The order recorded that since the value and description of the imported goods were mis -declared and excess goods were also discovered in the consignment, such imported goods were seized under Sec. 110 of the said Act on February 12, 2015 on the reasonable belief that such goods were liable for confiscation under Sec. 111 of the Act.