9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 672 - AT - CustomsWhether confirmation of suspension order under Order-in-Original dated 16.05.2016 is justified as per the provisions of Regulation 19(2) of CBLR, 2013. - Period of limitation - Held that - No evidence is brought on record by the department that notice for revocation of appellant s licence has been issued to the appellant within 90 days of receipt of Order-in-Original dated 23.03.2016. No irregularity on the part of the appellant has been brought on record from 2011 to the date of confirmation of suspension. - confirmation of suspension of CHA licence No.C-34 of the appellant under Order-in-Original dated 16.05.2016 is not justified and is set aside - Decided against the revenue.
Issues Involved:
Confirmation of suspension of CHA license under CBLR, 2013 and applicability of previous regulations, validity of suspension order, timeliness of revocation notice, continuation of suspension, legal arguments and case laws presented. Analysis: Confirmation of Suspension under CBLR, 2013: The appellant filed for early hearing of the appeal due to the impact on their livelihood caused by the suspension of their CHA license under Regulation 19(2) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation, 2013. The appellant argued that the suspension order was unjustified as the cause of action occurred before the introduction of CBLR, 2013. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the suspension, leading to the appeal challenging the validity of this confirmation. Applicability of Previous Regulations: The appellant contended that actions taken under the previous Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations, 2004 should govern the situation, especially regarding the events related to the suspension of the license. The appellant highlighted that the suspension under CHALR, 2004 was set aside by the Calcutta High Court, allowing them to continue working as a CHA. Validity of Suspension Order and Timeliness of Revocation Notice: The appellant argued that no specific offense report was received by the Adjudicating authority, and no show cause notice for revocation of the license was issued within the stipulated 90 days under Regulation 20(1) of CBLR, 2013. The appellant emphasized the importance of timely issuance of revocation notices and the lack of evidence of any irregularities on their part during the relevant period. Continuation of Suspension and Legal Arguments: The appellant raised concerns about the continuation of the suspension beyond the permissible period under the regulations. They relied on legal provisions and case laws to support their argument that the confirmation of suspension was not legally justified. The appellant presented a detailed timeline of events and legal precedents to bolster their case. Final Decision: After considering the arguments presented by both parties and examining the relevant legal provisions and case laws, the Tribunal held that the confirmation of the suspension of the CHA license was not justified. The Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Original confirming the suspension and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant. The Stay Petition filed by the appellant was also disposed of in light of the decision. This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata highlights the key issues, legal arguments, and the final decision rendered in the case involving the confirmation of the suspension of a CHA license under the relevant regulations.
|
