2017 (1) TMI 1481 - AT - Customs

Suspension of CHA License - subsequent restoration of license - export benefits such as Duty Drawback and DEPB - Held that - it appears that the appellant was providing logistic support to certain syndicates which were involved in the scandal of availing undue and inadmissible export benefits such as Duty Drawback, DEPB, etc. For this offence, the licence of the appellant was suspended in the year 2009 at Mumbai Office of Customs. Mumbai Customs office had also intimated about the suspension of licence to Delhi Customs office. The licence was restored as per the order of CESTAT dated 21-5-2012. When Delhi Customs office, after receiving the CESTAT order and reports from Mumbai Customs office had not taken any action, and the licence of appellant was restored by setting aside the suspension, then there is no occasion for Delhi Customs office to restart administrative action for revocation of the licence. It amounts to double jeopardy. As per Article 20 of the Constitution of India, no person can be punished twice for the same offence. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Suspension and revocation of CHA license by Customs authorities.
2. Double jeopardy and violation of Article 20 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the revocation of a Customs House Agent (CHA) license by the Customs authorities. The appellant held a CHA license issued from Delhi Customs office with authorization to work at Mumbai Port. The appellant had provided logistic support to syndicates engaged in exporting fabrics and garments of inferior quality to avail undue export benefits. The license was initially suspended by Mumbai Customs in 2009 but was restored by CESTAT's order in 2012. However, Delhi Customs office, ignoring the CESTAT order, revoked the license again in 2012, leading to the present appeal.

Upon hearing both parties, the Tribunal noted that the appellant's license was suspended and restored previously based on CESTAT's directions. The Delhi Customs office's subsequent revocation of the license, despite the CESTAT order, was deemed as double jeopardy, violating the appellant's rights under Article 20 of the Constitution of India, which prohibits punishing a person twice for the same offense. The Tribunal found that since the license was already restored following CESTAT's order, there was no legal basis for Delhi Customs to initiate administrative action for revocation again.

Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order of revocation and restoring the appellant's CHA license. The decision was based on the principle of double jeopardy and the constitutional protection against being punished twice for the same offense. The stay application was also disposed of in favor of the appellant. The judgment highlighted the importance of upholding legal principles and protecting individuals from unjust treatment by authorities, ensuring fair and just administrative actions in line with constitutional rights.