2003 (7) TMI 456 - AT - Customs

Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Appealable order - Limitation - Delay of 103 days in filing appeal

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal against rejection of CHA Licence renewal.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case is the delay of 103 days in filing an appeal against the rejection of the Customs House Agent (CHA) Licence renewal. The appellant, a Customs House Clearing Agent, received a letter from the Deputy Commissioner informing about the rejection of the renewal application as the original licence had expired, and the applicant failed to transact business regularly during the validity period of the licence.

2. The appellant argued that the original licence should have been issued for five years instead of three as per CHA Licensing Regulations, 1984. They contended that since the original licence was incorrect, there was no need for renewal. However, the Commissioner rejected this argument, stating that the appellant should have applied for renewal within the validity period of the licence.

3. The Revenue, represented by the J.D.R., opposed the appellant's arguments, citing a previous Tribunal decision that letters rejecting renewal requests are not appealable orders. The Revenue emphasized that the appellant did not protest the three-year validity period initially and failed to apply for renewal within the stipulated timeframe.

4. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal found no justifiable reason to interfere in the matter. The delay in filing the appeal was not condoned, and it was noted that previous rulings established that communication rejecting renewal requests cannot be appealed before the Tribunal. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Application and the appeal were rejected.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the CHA Licence renewal application due to the delay in filing the appeal and the lack of merit in the appellant's arguments regarding the validity period of the original licence. The decision was based on the regulatory framework and precedents set by previous Tribunal rulings regarding the appealability of rejection communications.