2014 (6) TMI 157 - AT - Customs

Non-renewal of the CHA Licence - Regulation 11 of the CHALR, 2004 - maintainability of appeal before tribunal - Held that - Parties to the appeal In Real Logistics Shipping Agencies (2010 (7) TMI 390 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) did not bring to the Notice of the Bench that there is a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of A.S. Vasan (2009 (4) TMI 100 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) specifically holding that no appeal lies against an order rejecting an pplication for renewal of CHA licence. In view of the said decision of the Hon ble Bombay high court, which has also referred to a similar judgment of the Hon ble Calcutta high court in M.Dutta Agency vs Commissioner of Customs- 1998 (1) TMI 86 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA , no appeal lies against the impugned order and hence the same cannot be entertained by the Tribunal - Appeal not maintainable - Decided against the appellant.

Summary

Issues involved: Jurisdiction of CESTAT regarding non-renewal of CHA Licence under CHALR, 2004

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of CESTAT in case of non-renewal of CHA Licence
The judgment addresses the issue of whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the non-renewal of a Customs House Agent (CHA) Licence under Regulation 11 of the CHALR, 2004. The Respondent, represented by Shri P. Arul, raised a preliminary objection citing a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of A.S. Vasan & Sons Vs. Union of India, which held that no appeal lies against an order rejecting an application for renewal of a CHA licence. On the other hand, the Appellant, represented by Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, referred to a decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Real Logistics Shipping Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Pune, which stated that an order refusing to renew a license is appealable under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis 1:
After considering the arguments from both sides, the judgment concludes that the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in A.S. Vasan & Sons case, which was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal in the Real Logistics Shipping Agencies case, specifically states that no appeal lies against an order rejecting the renewal of a CHA licence. The judgment also refers to a similar judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in M. Dutta Agency vs Commissioner of Customs, which supports the same principle. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that no appeal lies against the impugned order of non-renewal of the CHA Licence, and therefore, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. The Appellants are advised to seek redressal through an appropriate legal forum.

Issue 2: Disposal of Miscellaneous Applications
Additionally, the judgment mentions that both the miscellaneous applications related to the case have been disposed of along with the main appeal.

Analysis 2:
The judgment ensures that all aspects of the case, including miscellaneous applications, are addressed and disposed of accordingly, maintaining procedural fairness and completeness in the adjudication process.

In summary, the judgment clarifies the jurisdictional limits of CESTAT in cases of non-renewal of CHA Licences under CHALR, 2004, based on relevant legal precedents and interpretations of the law provided by both parties. It emphasizes the importance of adhering to established legal principles and decisions while determining the maintainability of appeals in such matters.