The Delhi High Court has held that the revoking suspension of license cannot restrict the customs department from inquiring for imposition of penalty. The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that the mere fact that the suspension of license had come to be revoked cannot possibly be viewed as restricting the respondents from proceeding further in accordance with Regulation 17.
The appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 questions the correctness of the decision rendered by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [CESTAT] dated 10 January 2024. In terms of the said order, the CESTAT has on an ultimate analysis of the facts and material existing on the record, affirmed the view taken by the Commissioner of Customs who finally absolved the appellant from the specter of revocation of license and confined the penal action to the imposition of a penalty of INR 50,000/-.
Mr. Dharambir Singh, representing the assessee, contended that while the appellant’s license had initially been suspended, it was subsequently reinstated by an order dated 09 March 2017, and he argued that the imposition of penalty was unjustified in light of the lack of any new or fresh material gathered during the inquiry conducted under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013, which have now been replaced by the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018.
The CESTAT found that Regulations 10(d) and 10(e) had been breached. Further found that the Commissioner had taken a balanced view in the matter and desisted from proceeding to revoke the license of the appellant which otherwise would have been warranted. It appears that in order to balance the equities, the Commissioner ultimately came to the conclusion that a forfeiture of the security deposit and the imposition of a penalty of INR 50,000/- would suffice.
Thus the court considered the opinion that the mere fact that the suspension of license had come to be revoked, cannot possibly be viewed as restricting the respondents from proceeding further in accordance with Regulation 17. As is manifest from the provisions made for the suspension of license, the same was liable to be invoked where the authorities are of the opinion that immediate action is warranted. Such an order of suspension is liable to be either revoked or continued depending upon the circumstances which may prevail and as contemplated under Regulation 16(2).
However, and merely because the suspension of that license was revoked, the same would not interdict the conclusion of the inquiry for imposition of penalty as contemplated in terms of Regulation 17.
The bench consequently found no ground to interfere with the view as expressed by CESTAT. The appeal fails and shall stand dismissed.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
