DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) The petitioner assails an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs dated January 27, 2017 exercising powers under Regulation 20(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004.
(2.) Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner has an appellate forum, the petitioner seeks to move this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that, the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction. He submits that, the Commissioner of Customs did not have the requisite jurisdiction to pass the impugned order since the conditions precedent for assumption of jurisdiction under Regulation 20(2) of the Regulations of 2004 are absent. He submits that, Regulation 20(2) requires satisfaction of three conditions for the Commissioner to invoke the same. He emphasises that, the Commissioner must in appropriate cases, where immediate action is necessary, act within 15 days of the receipt of a report from the Investigating Authority. In the present case, he submits that, all such three ingredients are absent. Immediate action is not necessary since the alleged defaults are on behalf of the importer during the year 2009-10. The Commissioner has powers under Regulation 20 to revoke the licence. The immediate power of suspension of licence need not be invoked in view of absence of immediate urgency. He submits that, there is no report by an Investigating Authority to the Commissioner of Customs for him to assume jurisdiction and exercise powers under Regulations 20(2) of the Regulations of 2004. He submits that the Investigating Authority is the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. In the present case, the Commissioner is relying upon an order-in-original passed with regard to the importer to be the investigating report. The Commissioner is not entitled to do so.
(3.) Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, a show cause notice was issued on November 25, 2014. The proceedings under Regulation 20(2) of the Regulations of 2004 was taken in 2016 much after the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of the report from the Investigating Authority, assuming there was a report by the investigating authority. Therefore the proceedings are time barred. He refers to the impugned order in which such point is taken by the petitioner. He submits that such point has not been decided correctly. Learned advocate for the petitioner relies upon 2004 (171) E.L.T. 301 (Kamal Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India) and submits that, in similar circumstances as obtaining in the present writ petition, the suspension of licence of the Customs House was set aside.;