2015 (9) TMI 619 - HC - Customs

Dismissal of Appeal Suspension of Identity card Applicant changes finding recorder in impugned order that as per provisions of Custom House Agents License Regulations, 2004, only appeal lies against order passed under Regulation 20 or Regulation 22 and no appeal is pending before Tribunal against suspension of Identity Card, hence appeal was dismissed Held that - Admittedly both punishments, namely imposition of fine and suspension of Identity Card were challenged in appeal However impugned order recording dismissal of appeal only on ground of non-pendency of appeal before tribunal in regards to suspension of identity card was incorrect Therefore, dismissal of appeal was product of non-application of mind Customs authority to pay compensation to applicant Matter remanded to Tribunal to consider appeal on merit Application disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to judgment and order dated 1st April, 2010.
2. Dismissal of appeal based on unauthorized submission and forged document.
3. Dispute regarding suspension of Identity Card and appeal process.
4. Non-application of mind leading to dismissal of appeal.
5. Compensation for appellant and remand of the matter to Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The High Court of Calcutta addressed the challenge to a judgment and order dated 1st April, 2010, which dismissed an appeal. The dismissal was based on specific reasons outlined in the order, including the unauthorized submission of a Bill of Entry and a forged document by the appellant, leading to the revocation of the Identity Card. The Court noted that the adjudicating authority had acted in accordance with the Custom House Agents License Regulations, 2004, which limited the scope of appeal against certain orders.

2. The Court observed that there was a factual error in the finding that no appeal was pending before the Tribunal against the suspension of the Identity Card. The appellant had indeed challenged both the fine imposed and the suspension of the Identity Card in the appeal. The dismissal of the appeal was deemed to be a result of non-application of mind by the Tribunal, causing the appellant to suffer for over five years. Consequently, the Court decided to remand the matter for further consideration, acknowledging the need for complete justice for the appellant.

3. In light of the appellant's prolonged suffering, the Court directed the customs authority, as the respondent, to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 1 lakh for each year of the appellant's hardship, totaling Rs. 5 lakhs. The compensation was to be disbursed within two weeks from the date of service of the Court's order. Additionally, the Court rejected a request for a stay of operation of the order and instructed the Tribunal to reexamine the appeal on its merits within three months from the date of communication of the Court's order, emphasizing the importance of a thorough review process.