Authorised Courier Can Appeal Licence Revocation After Chief Commissioner Representation: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that an Authorised Courier whose licence has been revoked under the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 2010 can maintain a statutory appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, even after availing the remedy of representation before the Chief Commissioner under the Regulations.

A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain set aside a CESTAT order that had dismissed the courier's appeal as not maintainable on the ground that the 2010 Regulations provided only a remedy of representation before the Chief Commissioner.

The appellant, Navalai Enterprises, is an Authorised Courier registered under the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 2010.

Its authorisation was revoked by the Commissioner of Customs under Regulation 13(1), who also ordered forfeiture of its security deposit and imposed a penalty.

After the appellant's representation under Regulation 13(2) was rejected by the Chief Commissioner, it filed an appeal before the CESTAT under Section 129A of the Customs Act.

CESTAT, however, dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, prompting the present appeal.

Before the High Court, Appellant relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Customs v. Bombino Express Pvt. Ltd., which held that the remedy of representation under the Courier Regulations does not displace the statutory appellate remedy under Section 129A of the Customs Act.

Revenue, however, contended that since the appellant had already availed the representation mechanism, no further statutory appeal was maintainable.

Accepting the appellant's contention, the Court observed that the Commissioner's order revoking an Authorised Courier licence is passed while exercising adjudicatory powers under the statutory scheme of the Customs Act. Therefore, such an order is appealable under Section 129A.

It observed,

"Section 129A of the Customs Act provides a statutory remedy of appeal against a decision or order passed by the Commissioner of Customs acting as an adjudicating authority. While passing the Order-in-Original under Regulation 13(1), the Commissioner of Customs was exercising adjudicatory powers under the statutory scheme. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 was maintainable."

The Court further distinguished the CESTAT's reliance on its earlier decision in Pacific Express v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs, noting that the earlier case concerned the maintainability of an appeal against an order passed by the Chief Commissioner under Regulation 13(2), whereas the present appeal was directed against the original adjudicatory order of the Commissioner of Customs under Regulation 13(1).

For Appellant: Advocate Mohd. Faraz Anees, Advocate Mukeshwar Nath Dubey, Advocate Ajay Kumar, Advocate Kartik Vashisht and Advocate Yash Singh.

For Respondent: Advocate Anish Roy, Senior Standing Counsel, CBIC.