2010 (2) TMI 613 - HC - Customs

Customs House Agents - licence having been issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata under Regulation 9 sub-Regulation (1), the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi had no jurisdiction to suspend the licence - appropriate orders withdrawing the acceptance of intimation and/or any other orders of the concerned Commissionerate of New Delhi, with regard to the transaction of business in the New Delhi zone - writ petition is disposed accordingly

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs, Suspension of CHA licence, Compliance with Regulations

Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs:
The petitioner challenged the order suspending their CHA licence, arguing that the Commissioner of Customs in New Delhi had no jurisdiction to suspend a licence issued by the Commissioner of Customs in Kolkata. The petitioner contended that the suspension could only be carried out by the Commissioner of Customs in Kolkata, who issued the original licence. The affidavit-in-opposition from customs authorities clarified that the suspension pertained to the licence granted under Regulation 9(2) for Delhi Customs jurisdiction, not the licence issued for Calcutta under Regulation 9(1). The court analyzed the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, emphasizing that licences are granted only under Regulation 9(1), with sub-regulation (2) detailing the eligibility to work in all Customs Stations upon intimation to the concerned Commissioner of Customs. The court concluded that the Commissioner of Customs in New Delhi lacked jurisdiction to suspend the licence issued by the Commissioner of Customs in Kolkata, suggesting that the New Delhi Commissioner could have withdrawn the acceptance of the intimation instead.

Suspension of CHA Licence:
The impugned order, suspending the CHA licence, was challenged by the petitioner on grounds of jurisdiction. The court noted that the licence was issued by the Commissioner of Customs in Kolkata under Regulation 9(1) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004. However, the suspension was carried out by the Commissioner of Customs in New Delhi under Regulation 9(2) for Delhi Customs jurisdiction. The court highlighted that the intimation to transact business in the Delhi zone was accepted by the Commissioner of Customs in New Delhi, as per the regulations. The court ultimately set aside and quashed the impugned order, allowing the Commissioner of Customs in New Delhi to take appropriate legal actions in accordance with the law, such as withdrawing the acceptance of the intimation for business transactions in the New Delhi zone.

Compliance with Regulations:
The judgment emphasized the importance of compliance with the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004. It clarified that licences are issued under Regulation 9(1), with sub-regulation (2) outlining the eligibility to work in all Customs Stations upon intimation to the concerned Commissioner of Customs. The court's decision to set aside the suspension order was based on the interpretation of these regulations and the jurisdictional limitations of the Commissioner of Customs in New Delhi. The judgment highlighted the need for adherence to regulatory provisions and proper jurisdictional authority in matters concerning CHA licences and business transactions within different Customs zones.