2013 (4) TMI 257 - AT - Customs

Suspension of CHA Licence - The licence has been issued by the Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi and the same has been suspended by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai - Jurisdiction of commissioner - large scale of fraudulent exports of various types of fabrics wherein certain unscrupulous exporters have grossly overvalued their export goods so as to avail higher DEPB/Drawback benefit which otherwise are not admissible. - Held that - In the case of International Shipping Agency (2011 (8) TMI 933 - CESTAT, MUMBAI ), the issue came up before this Tribunal where the CHA licence was issued by the Commissioner of Customs (General, New Delhi and the same was suspended by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai - In that case, the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai, has no jurisdiction - Therefore, the impugned order was not sustainable and set aside. Following the decision in the case of Excel India Pvt. Ltd.(2008 (6) TMI 399 - CESTAT, MUMBAI ) - Held that - we hold the Articles of Charges framed against the CHA had been proved as held by Commissioner. However, we find that the Commissioner has sought to revoke the licence under Regulation 22 by issuing a show cause notice but has prohibited the appellant from conducting business in Mumbai Custom House which cannot be considered as prohibiting the agent from working in a section or more sections of the Custom House. The Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai, has no jurisdiction to suspend the licence of the appellant, as the same has been issued by the Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi - Decided in favor of CHA.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against suspension of CHA Licence, Condonation of delay, Early hearing of appeal, Miscellaneous application for additional evidence, Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai to suspend licence.

The appellant filed an appeal against the suspension of their CHA Licence, along with applications for condonation of delay, early hearing of the appeal, miscellaneous application for additional evidence, and stay application. The Tribunal considered the grounds for condonation of delay, noting the appellant's health issues and the genuineness of reasons provided, thereby condoning the delay. Given the impact on the appellant's livelihood due to the suspension, the Tribunal allowed the application for early hearing and proceeded with the appeal for final disposal on the same day.

The appellant sought to add judicial pronouncements in support of their appeal through a miscellaneous application, which the Tribunal allowed to bring additional evidence on record. The suspension of the CHA Licence was based on an investigation by the DRI, Mumbai, revealing fraudulent exports facilitated by the appellant. The Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai, suspended the licence, leading to the appeal.

During the hearing, the appellant argued that the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai, lacked the jurisdiction to suspend their licence, as it was issued by the Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi. Citing precedents like the case of International Shipping Agency, the appellant contended that the suspension order was without jurisdiction. The Tribunal examined the jurisdictional issue and held that the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai, indeed lacked the authority to suspend the licence issued by the Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi.

Relying on previous judgments like Excel India Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable due to the lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the suspension order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The decision clarified that this ruling would not prejudice any proceedings initiated by the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi, and emphasized the importance of jurisdiction in such matters.

In summary, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the suspension of the CHA Licence, and emphasized the significance of jurisdiction in matters concerning the issuance and suspension of licenses by different Customs authorities. The decision highlighted the need for adherence to jurisdictional boundaries to ensure the legality and validity of administrative actions in such cases.