2014 (11) TMI 1112 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction - restoration of CHA licence - Held that - interest of justice would be served if the impugned order is set aside, which is operative within the Mumbai Commissionerate, the order and direction setting it aside would be subject to the proceedings that are pending before the Commissionerate of Customs at Thiruvananthapuram - The petitioner s Customs House Agent Licence to stand revived and restored within Mumbai I, II and III Customs Commissionerates - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order prohibiting petitioner from working as Customs House Agent in Mumbai Commissionerates under Regulation 21 of Customs House Agents Licencing Regulations, 2004.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, operates as a Customs House Agent in Mumbai-I, II, and III Customs Commissionerates. An order was issued by the respondent prohibiting the petitioner from functioning in these Commissionerates, leading to a challenge by the petitioner. The petitioner's Customs House Agent license was initially issued in 1997 by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Trivandrum, and had been extended over time. The issue arose when the petitioner faced penalties after being suspected of fraudulent activities related to duty drawback claims during an export cargo clearance work. Following investigations and a show cause notice, penalties were imposed, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and subsequently to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).

The CESTAT, in an order dated 8th April, 2014, allowed the petitioner's appeal and set aside the penalty imposed. However, the respondent raised concerns regarding a pending show cause notice issued by the Thiruvananthapuram Commissionerate, which had not been adjudicated at the time of the writ petition. The Court, after considering the facts and affidavits presented, noted that the petitioner was accused of facilitating unlawful evasion of law, leading to penalties that were later set aside by the CESTAT. The Court found that the impugned order prohibiting the petitioner from functioning as a Customs House Agent was solely based on the findings of the adjudication proceedings, and as the CESTAT order had not been challenged or set aside, the interest of justice would be served by quashing and setting aside the impugned order.

The Court clarified that its decision to quash the impugned order was subject to the pending proceedings at the Thiruvananthapuram Commissionerate and any potential challenges by the Revenue against the CESTAT order. The Court emphasized that the petitioner should have the opportunity to present its version fully, and therefore, the impugned order was set aside, reviving and restoring the petitioner's Customs House Agent License within the Mumbai Commissionerates, with the condition that it was subject to the outcomes of the mentioned proceedings. No costs were awarded in the judgment.