Case Details: Vijender Singh Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import and General) (2025) 31 Centax 107 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- J.B. Pardiwala & R. Mahadevan, JJ.
- Dr. Ashutosh S/Shri Devesh Maurya, Virender Kumar Sharma, Ravi Kumar, Advs. & Praveen Swarup, AOR, for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a Customs Broker, filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court challenging the order of the High Court which had affirmed the imposition of penalty under Regulation 17 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, despite the prior revocation of suspension under Regulation 16(2). The matter originated from proceedings initiated under Regulation 16, where the Customs Broker’s licence had been initially suspended. Upon completion of the inquiry, the adjudicating authority refrained from revoking the licence and instead imposed a penalty of ₹50,000 along with forfeiture of the security deposit, citing violations of Regulations 10(d) and 10(n). The CESTAT upheld this view after considering the statement of the employee of the Customs Broker.
The Delhi High Court, in the impugned judgment, confirmed the CESTAT’s reasoning and held that the revocation of suspension under Regulation 16(2) did not preclude the continuation of proceedings under Regulation 17 for the purpose of penalty. The matter was accordingly placed before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that no interference was warranted with the impugned order passed by the High Court. It observed that the findings recorded by the lower forums, including the justification for imposing penalty despite revocation of suspension, did not suffer from any legal infirmity. The Court noted that Regulation 16(2) allows for either revocation or continuation of suspension based on prevailing circumstances and that Regulation 17 operates independently for the conclusion of inquiry and imposition of penalty. Accordingly, after condoning the delay, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Vijendra Singh v. Commissioner — (2025) 31 Centax 106 (Del.) — Affirmed [Para 2]
