Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by an order in original dated November 22, 2017 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Administration), Customs House, Kolkata. The impugned order revokes the licence granted in favour of the petitioner on the finding that, the petitioner failed to discharge his obligations under Regulation 11(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013.
(2.) The impugned order is appealable.
(3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, notwithstanding the availability of a statutory appeal, the writ petition is maintainable, as the impugned order was passed by a person, who had no jurisdiction to do so. The incidents alleged in the impugned order are of 2012. A proceeding was initiated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ludhiana through a show-cause notice dated January 9, 2014 under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. Such show-cause was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana, and an order in original dated February 27, 2015 was passed. A penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner, under Section 124 of the Act of 1962. The adjudicating authority did not find any violation of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) on April 16, 2015. The petitioner received a show-cause notice dated June 23, 2017 under Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004. The petitioner replied thereto. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, Regulation 22 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 prescribes a time limit of 90 days for the initiation of proceedings thereunder from the date of receipt of the offence report. In the present case, the alleged offence having taken place in 2012, a proceeding under the Regulations of 2004 in view of Regulation 22 thereof, is barred by limitation. The issue of limitation is an issue of jurisdiction. A writ petition on such an issue is maintainable. He relies upon (Indo-Foreign (Agent) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India,2017 355 ELT 30 (Cal)) in support of his contentions. In support of the contention that, the show-cause notice dated June 23, 2017 is barred by limitation, learned Advocate for the petitioner relies upon (Sanco Trans Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Sea Port/Imports, Chennai, 2015 322 ELT 170 (Madras)), (Commissioner of Customs (General) v. S.K. Logistics, 2016 337 ELT 39), Indair Carrier Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (General), 2016 337 ELT 41 (Del.)) and (Overseas Air Cargo Services v. Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi, 2016 340 ELT 119 (Del.)).;