2011 (4) TMI 1138 - AT - Customs

Custom House Agents Licence Held that - adjudicating Commissioner s action in revoking a licence, granted by another Commissioner of a different jurisdiction is also prima facie contrary to the Board s Circular No. 9/2010-Cus. dated 8-4-2010, which in paragraph 5.2 clarifies that necessary action for suspension or revocation of CHA licence should be initiated only by the Commissioner who had issued the licence, stay the operation of the impugned order during pendency of the appeal and allow the stay petition filed by the appellants, appeal is also allowed

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of Commissioner to revoke CHA license issued by another Commissioner; Prima facie legality of revocation; Applicability of relevant legal precedents and circulars.

In this case, the appellants were granted a Custom House Agents (CHA) license by the Commissioner of Customs in Mumbai, which was extended to allow business transactions in the Coimbatore Commissionerate. However, the Commissioner of Coimbatore revoked the CHA license for three years, prompting a challenge. The Tribunal found that the revocation by the Coimbatore Commissioner appeared to lack jurisdiction as it was contrary to legal precedents and circulars. Notably, the Tribunal referenced a decision by the Calcutta High Court which held that a Commissioner cannot suspend a license issued by another Commissioner. Additionally, the Tribunal cited a Customs Circular stating that only the issuing Commissioner should initiate suspension or revocation proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal stayed the operation of the revocation order pending appeal, granting relief to the appellants.

The Tribunal's decision to stay the operation of the revocation order was based on the apparent lack of jurisdiction by the Coimbatore Commissioner in revoking the CHA license issued by the Mumbai Commissioner. The Tribunal noted that the revocation seemed to go against established legal principles, as highlighted by the Calcutta High Court's ruling and the Customs Circular which emphasized that only the issuing Commissioner should take action on the license. By granting the stay, the Tribunal provided interim relief to the appellants during the appeal process, ensuring that they could continue their business activities unhindered.

Furthermore, the Tribunal allowed the appellants' miscellaneous application for an early hearing of the appeal, scheduling the matter for a specific date. This decision indicates the Tribunal's willingness to expedite the resolution of the case, demonstrating a proactive approach to addressing the legal issues raised by the appellants. The Tribunal's decision to prioritize the appeal for an early hearing underscores the significance of the jurisdictional issues and the need for a prompt resolution in the interest of justice.