2015 (3) TMI 1071 - AT - Customs

Denial of CHA License - Held that - When, in response to a newspaper advertisement and PN 44/2001 dt. 28/02/2001, appellant had applied for temporary CHA licence, their Clerk Shri Joseph Francis was qualified to get a licence because (i) of his 5 year experience in Customs House Work and (ii) of his possessing a permanent ID Card. Customs Department did not take any action till 30/06/2001 on which date the G-Card issued to Shri Joseph Francis had expired. In the meantime Shri Joseph Francis had temporarily joined another licensed CHA M/s. Capithan Agencies and obtained a G-Card No.8/06 which was valid till 09/06/2007. The respondent had rejected the application for issue of temporary CHA licence on the grounds that (i) the delay in processing the application was because of a direction issued by the High Court of Kerala, (ii) Shri Joseph Francis did not possess a valid G-Card, at the time of processing the application and (iii) Shri Joseph Francis had, at the time of processing the application, obtained a valid G-Card showing his employment with Capithan Agencies. - facts are covered by the precedent decision of the Tribunal 2008 (4) TMI 55 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI against the applicant - Decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Non-appearance of the appellant during hearings
- Whether the appellant should be granted a CHA license
- Rejection of the application for a temporary CHA license

Non-appearance of the appellant during hearings:
The judgment highlights the repeated non-appearance of the appellant during hearings despite multiple opportunities given by the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to utilize the four opportunities provided for presenting their case, as required by the statutory limit. Despite being listed for hearings on several dates, the appellant or their representative did not attend any of the hearings, leading to the Tribunal proceeding in the absence of the appellant.

Whether the appellant should be granted a CHA license:
The issue raised in the case pertains to whether the appellant should be granted a Custom House Agent (CHA) license. The learned Additional Commissioner argued that according to a previous decision in the case of G.P. Jaiswal Vs. CC, Lucknow, there is no appeal to the Tribunal in the case of rejection of a CHA license application. Instead, the appellant should make a request to the Chief Commissioner. The learned AR requested the Tribunal to follow the decision in the mentioned case.

Rejection of the application for a temporary CHA license:
The Tribunal considered the facts surrounding the application for a temporary CHA license. The appellant had applied for the license based on the qualifications of their Clerk, Shri Joseph Francis, who had experience in Customs House work and possessed a permanent ID card. However, the application was rejected by the respondent citing reasons such as a delay due to a High Court direction, the lack of a valid G-Card for Shri Joseph Francis during the application processing, and his employment with another CHA agency at that time. The Tribunal observed that the facts of the case aligned with a previous decision against the applicant, leading to the rejection of the appeal on the grounds of lack of merit.

In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the importance of the appellant's presence during hearings, the procedure for CHA license appeals, and the specific reasons for the rejection of the temporary CHA license application. The decision was made based on the facts presented, aligning with a precedent set by the Tribunal against the appellant.