Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from a decision of the CESTAT dated 2 January 2013, which held that an appeal is not maintainable against an order passed under Regulation 21 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 (CHALR, 2004), prohibiting a Customs House Agent from working in one or more sections of the Customs Station. The appellant, S.R. Sale & Co., was licensed as a Customs House Agent (CHA) by the Commissioner of Customs, Pune on 8 October 1998 under the erstwhile Customs House Agents Licensing Regulation, 1984. On 12 September 2012, the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai, in exercise of power under Regulation 21 of CHALR, 2004, passed an order prohibiting the appellant from transacting CHA related business in Zones I, II and III of the Mumbai Customs Station with immediate effect, based on intelligence inputs that the appellant was involved in export of cheap material misdeclared as high value bulk drugs and illegally availing DEPB benefits. The appellant challenged this order before CESTAT, which dismissed the appeal as not maintainable following its decision in Vetri Impex v. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai. The appellant then filed the present appeal before the Bombay High Court raising three substantial questions of law: (a) whether CESTAT was justified in holding that no appeal lies to CESTAT against an order under Regulation 21 in view of Regulation 22(8); (b) whether Regulation 22(8) is ultra vires the Customs Act, 1962; and (c) whether Regulation 21 is ultra vires the Customs Act, 1962. The High Court admitted the appeal on these questions and took it up for final disposal by consent. The Court held that Regulation 22(8) of CHALR, 2004 specifically bars an appeal against an order under Regulation 21, and that this provision is not ultra vires the Customs Act, 1962, as it is a valid piece of subordinate legislation. The Court also held that Regulation 21 is not ultra vires the Customs Act, 1962, as it is within the rule-making power and is a reasonable restriction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Customs Law - Appeal Maintainability - Regulation 22(8) of CHALR, 2004 - Whether appeal lies to CESTAT against order under Regulation 21 - The Court held that no appeal lies to CESTAT against an order passed under Regulation 21 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, as Regulation 22(8) specifically bars such appeal. (Paras 1-3) B) Customs Law - Ultra Vires - Regulation 22(8) of CHALR, 2004 - Whether Regulation 22(8) is ultra vires Section 129A of Customs Act, 1962 - The Court held that Regulation 22(8) is not ultra vires the Customs Act, 1962, as it is a valid subordinate legislation made under the rule-making power of the Central Board of Excise and Customs. (Paras 5-8) C) Customs Law - Ultra Vires - Regulation 21 of CHALR, 2004 - Whether Regulation 21 is ultra vires the Customs Act, 1962 - The Court held that Regulation 21 is not ultra vires the Customs Act, 1962, as it is within the scope of the rule-making power and is a reasonable restriction on the working of a Customs House Agent. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an appeal lies to CESTAT against an order passed under Regulation 21 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004; whether Regulation 22(8) of the CHALR, 2004 is ultra vires the Customs Act, 1962; whether Regulation 21 of the CHALR, 2004 is ultra vires the Customs Act, 1962.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The Court held that no appeal lies to CESTAT against an order under Regulation 21 of CHALR, 2004, and that Regulation 22(8) and Regulation 21 are not ultra vires the Customs Act, 1962.
Law Points
- Appeal maintainability
- Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations
- 2004
- Regulation 22(8) vires
- Regulation 21 vires
- Section 129A Customs Act
- 1962
