9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 534 - AT - CustomsProhibition to conduct operations as a CHA - Revocation/suspension of license - Held that - order passed by CC Kandla is an interim measure taken by the ld.Commissioner by prohibiting the appellant in operating in the area of Customs House in Kandla and Mundra and is passed under Regulation 21 of CHALR 2004 read with Regulation 23 of CBLR 2013. We find that at this juncture, no interference is called for in this order and find that the appeal filed by the appellant is required to be disposed of as not maintainable - Following decision of S.R. Sale & Co. Vs. UoI & Ors 2013 (6) TMI 272 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - Decided against appellant.
Issues:
1. Out of turn hearing of Stay Petition. 2. Prohibition to conduct operations as a CHA under Regulation 21 of CHALR 2004. 3. Validity of the order passed by CC Kandla. 4. Compliance with principles of natural justice in passing prohibitory orders. Issue 1: Out of turn hearing of Stay Petition The Stay Petition for out of turn hearing was disposed of as infructuous since it was already listed for disposal, and the application for out of turn hearing was not required. Issue 2: Prohibition to conduct operations as a CHA under Regulation 21 of CHALR 2004 The Tribunal found that no amount needed to be stayed, and the Stay Petition was disposed of as infructuous. The main issue was regarding the prohibition imposed on the appellant to operate as a CHA. The order passed by CC Kandla prohibited the appellant from operating in the area of Customs House in Kandla and Mundra. The Tribunal noted that the order was an interim measure under Regulation 21 of CHALR 2004 and Regulation 23 of CBLR 2013. The appeal filed by the appellant was deemed not maintainable, and the Tribunal emphasized that CC Kandla should follow the principles of natural justice as laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. Issue 3: Validity of the order passed by CC Kandla The appellant argued that the order passed by CC Kandla effectively suspended the CHA license issued by the Commissionerate Jamnagar. The Departmental Representative contended that the order was administrative and not quasi-judicial. The Tribunal observed that the order was an interim measure prohibiting the appellant from operating in specific Customs House areas and was passed under relevant regulations. The Tribunal decided that no interference was necessary in the order, and the appeal was disposed of as not maintainable. Issue 4: Compliance with principles of natural justice in passing prohibitory orders The Tribunal referred to a report of the Committee on Subordinate Legislation regarding Regulation 21, which allows the Commissioner of Customs to prohibit an agent from working in Customs stations under certain conditions. The report emphasized the need for reasons to be recorded in writing to avoid arbitrariness in decisions. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of observing natural justice principles and giving the CHA an opportunity to present their case before passing prohibitory orders. It was noted that immediate action may be necessary in certain cases, but the principles of natural justice should still be followed. In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of, emphasizing the need for adherence to the principles of natural justice and proper procedures in passing prohibitory orders affecting CHAs.
|
