2006 (12) TMI 294 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of permission to operate as CHA in Custom House, Tuticorin.
2. Interpretation of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004.
3. Quasi-judicial function of a Commissioner of Customs.

Issue 1: Denial of permission to operate as CHA in Custom House, Tuticorin
The appellants, Customs House Agents (CHA), were denied permission to operate in Tuticorin by the Commissioner of Customs based on penalties imposed in cases of unauthorized export of goods and improper claim of drawback in 1998. The appellants challenged this decision, arguing that the denial was beyond the scope of the Commissioner's function under Regulation 9(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004. The Tribunal found that the denial was not justified as Regulation 9(2) allows a CHA holding a valid license to work in all Customs Stations within the country upon intimation in Form-C. The denial based on pending penalty cases was deemed unsustainable.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004
Regulation 9(1) empowers a Commissioner of Customs to grant a regular license (Form-B) to a CHA who has passed the prescribed examination, enabling them to operate within the jurisdiction. Regulation 9(2) allows a CHA with a regular license to work in all Customs Stations upon intimation in Form-C, without needing a separate license. The Tribunal clarified that Form-C is for intimation purposes only and not an application for a license. The Commissioner can verify the CHA's details but cannot reject based on reasons specified for license applications under sub-regulation 3. The Tribunal emphasized that a CHA with a valid license cannot be prevented from transacting business in another Customs Station based solely on pending penalty cases.

Issue 3: Quasi-judicial function of a Commissioner of Customs
The Tribunal highlighted that the function of a Commissioner of Customs under Regulation 9(2) is quasi-judicial and must be discharged accordingly without delegation to a subordinate authority. It was noted that the Commissioner should have issued the decision directly to the appellants. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned proceedings and directed the Commissioner to issue a speaking order on the appellants' intimation under Regulation 9(2), ensuring the appellants are given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

This judgment clarifies the rights and obligations of Customs House Agents under the relevant regulations and emphasizes the quasi-judicial nature of decisions made by Commissioners of Customs in such matters.