2015 (10) TMI 2803 - HC - Customs

Suspension of CHA License - continuation of suspension - distinction between the proceedings under Regulation 20 and the proceedings under Regulation 22 - HELD THAT - The Tribunal in SS. INTERNATIONAL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (SEAPORT-IMPORT) CHENNAI 2015 (1) TMI 444 - CESTAT CHENNAI allowed the appeal and set aside the order of suspension on the basis of an earlier decision of the Tribunal itself in the case of M/S. D. THIMMESWARA RAO AND OTHERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT IMPORT) 2013 (11) TMI 1045 - CESTAT CHENNAI . In the said decision the Tribunal noted the distinction between the proceedings under Regulation 20 and the proceedings under Regulation 22. The Tribunal also took note of another decision of the Tribunal in MANJUNATHA SHIPPING SERVICES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS) CHENNAI 2013 (10) TMI 1002 - CESTAT CHENNAI - Moreover the Customs House Agent licence granted to the second respondent expired on 6-4-2015. Hence the appeal arising out of an order of suspension had actually become infructuous. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against setting aside suspension of Customs House Agent license.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Customs challenging the setting aside of the suspension of a Customs House Agent license. The Commissioner had suspended the license based on an investigation by the Docks Intelligence Unit, following which a personal hearing was granted to the second respondent. The suspension was continued through an Order-in-Original, and an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct an inquiry.

The second respondent appealed the suspension before the Tribunal, which set aside the suspension order citing a previous decision of the Tribunal in a similar case. The Tribunal differentiated between proceedings under Regulation 20 and Regulation 22, referencing other relevant decisions in the process. The High Court noted that its judgment affirming the Tribunal's decision in a related case had been followed in subsequent cases, indicating consistency in the legal interpretation.

Furthermore, the High Court observed that the Customs House Agent license granted to the second respondent had expired by the time of the appeal, rendering the appeal moot. Despite refraining from expressing any opinion on the underlying merits of the case that could impact license renewal, the High Court dismissed the appeal without costs. Consequently, a related Miscellaneous Petition was also dismissed.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to set aside the suspension of the Customs House Agent license, considering the expiration of the license and the lack of necessity to delve into the case's merits due to its infructuous nature.