2016 (3) TMI 605 - AT - Customs

Validity of Commissioner s order - Revokation of CHA licence - Violation of clear procedure under Regulation 20 and mandated procedure under Regulation 22 - Held that there was no notice contemplated under Regulation 22(1) or the nomination of enquiry authority as specified therein, ever emanated from the respondent, who is the jurisdictional Commissioner. Also the inquiry report dated 20.09.2012 by Shri KGVN Surya Teja, Dy Commissioner of Customs, SUB, Mumbai was wholly unauthorised as the respondent admittedly did not nominate him as the enquiry officer. It is this enquiry report which formed the basis for Notice dated 07.11.2012 issued by the respondent and this notice is one clearly falling within the ambit of Regulation 22(6) and not 22(1). Therefore, the order is invalid, as there is a clear and fatal violation of the clear procedure mandated for revocation of the appellant s licence authorised under Regulation 20, qua the mandated procedure under Regulation 22. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues: Lack of jurisdiction in revoking CHA license under CHALR, 2004

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a Customs House Agent (CHA), appealed against the revocation of their CHA license and forfeiture of security deposit by the Commissioner of Customs. The challenge was based on the lack of jurisdiction of the authority initiating the proceedings under CHALR, 2004. The appeal also raised contentions on the merits of the decision.

2. The chronology of events revealed that the suspension of the appellant's license was initiated by the Commissioner of Customs in Mumbai, not the jurisdictional Commissioner in Delhi who issued the CHA license. The enquiry officer who provided the report forming the basis of the revocation was appointed by the Mumbai Commissioner, not the jurisdictional Commissioner in Delhi.

3. Regulation 22 of the 2004 Regulations outlines the procedure for suspension or revocation of a CHA license. It mandates that the jurisdictional Commissioner, who issued the license, must issue a notice stating the grounds for suspension or revocation and appoint an enquiry authority. The enquiry report must be considered by the jurisdictional Commissioner before making a decision.

4. The respondent admitted that the enquiry officer was appointed by the Mumbai Commissioner, not the jurisdictional Commissioner in Delhi. The notice issued by the Delhi Commissioner was based on this unauthorized enquiry report, violating the prescribed procedure under Regulation 22.

5. The clear violation of the procedure mandated for revocation of the CHA license under Regulation 20, concerning the procedure under Regulation 22, led to the invalidation of the impugned order. The Tribunal quashed the order and allowed the appeal without costs.