2015 (9) TMI 1310 - AT - Customs

Rejection of application for customs broker licence - Violation of principles of natural justice - Held that - As per the Regulation 21 of CBLR, 2013 only Customs broker can file the appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1944 (sic) before the CESTAT. We find that in the present case the applicants are not customs brokers and under section 146(2)(f) of the Regulations appeal can be made only against the order of suspension of revocation of licence - Present applicants are firstly neither custom broker nor order impugned is order for revocation or suspension. appeal against rejection of application for custom broker licence does not lie before this Tribunal - Therefore, the issue is to be decided on its maintainability first.

Summary

Issues:
- Rejection of application for customs broker license
- Early hearing application
- Principles of natural justice violation
- Delay in deciding appeal
- Fundamental rights violation
- CHALR provisions
- Regulation 21 of CBLR, 2013
- Customs Act, 1944
- Appeal jurisdiction of CESTAT

Rejection of Application for Customs Broker License:
The judgment pertains to early hearing applications arising from the rejection of applications for customs broker licenses. The applicants, ordinary employees earning Rs. 5000 per month, had deposited Rs. 5 lakhs as security with the department. They argued that the rejection violated principles of natural justice and their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The appeal was filed against the rejection of the application for a customs broker license.

Early Hearing Application:
The applicants sought early hearing, citing potential irreparable loss due to the delay in deciding the appeal. The Tribunal noted that under the CHALR, 2004, appeals in such matters should be decided within one year. Considering the reasons provided for early hearing as satisfactory, the Tribunal allowed the early hearing applications.

Regulatory Provisions and Jurisdiction:
Upon reviewing the appeal papers, the Tribunal prima facie found that the applicants were not customs brokers. According to Regulation 21 of CBLR, 2013, only customs brokers can file appeals under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1944 before the CESTAT. The Tribunal observed that the appeal in this case was against the rejection of the application for a custom broker license, not a suspension or revocation order as required by the regulations.

Conclusion:
In light of the above observations, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal against the rejection of the customs broker license application was not within its jurisdiction. The matter was listed for a hearing on maintainability to address this issue. The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to regulatory provisions and jurisdictional requirements in appeals related to customs broker licenses.