9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 996 - AT - CustomsRevocation of CHA License - Held that - Applicant has approached the Hon ble Calcutta High Court, the proceeding of revocation could not be completed. Since the matter is still sub-judice and pending before the Hon ble High Court, it would be inappropriate to pass any order in relation to the said issue, by this Tribunal. - Stay denied.
Issues involved: Stay of Order-in-Original regarding suspension of license under Customs House Agents Licensing Regulation (CHALR), 2004 pending before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court.
Analysis: 1. The applicant sought a stay of the Order-in-Original No.Kol/Cus/Airport/Admn./31/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Admn.), Kolkata, which confirmed the suspension of the license under Regulation 20(2) of CHALR, 2004 and initiated proceedings for revocation under Regulation 22 of the same. The applicant contended that necessary inquiries were completed by the Department, but the Enquiry Officer was changed, leading to the filing of a Writ Petition No.599 of 2014 before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. The applicant did not pray for a stay of the operation of the Order dated 21st December, 2012. The Tribunal was urged to stay the said order in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. 2. The Department argued that since the matter was sub-judice before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, where the revocation proceedings could not be completed, it would be inappropriate for the Tribunal to intervene in the issue. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal concurred with the Department's stance. The Tribunal noted that the matter pending before the High Court was directly related to the appeal before them. Consequently, the Tribunal found no justification to interfere with the Commissioner's order dated 21.12.2012 while the connected issue was under the consideration of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. Therefore, the stay petition filed by the Applicant was rejected. This judgment highlights the importance of judicial prudence in matters where related issues are pending before higher courts, emphasizing the need for proper legal recourse and the avoidance of premature interference by lower tribunals.
|
