2017 (2) TMI 85 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA licence - the CHA licence of the appellant is already revoked, in the facts of the case, whether the impugned order is correct? - Held that - the impugned order is non est order inasmuch, order for revocation of licence connot be in thin air. A CHA licence which is already revoked, cannot be again revoked subject to it being reinstated by higher authorities. In our view, this order of the adjudicating authority is not correct passed without any application of mind and needs to be set aside and we do so. Time period taken to complete the proceedings - inordinate delay - Held that - The CHA licence of the appellant was suspended on 6.2.2007 and the order-in original which revoked the licence is dated 15.10.2013. The timeline for conclusion of the proceedings from the date of suspension is approximately five years and eight months, a delay detrimental to the entire proceedings - inordinate delay in the case in hand to complete the proceedings against the CHA is detrimental and the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground only. The order-in-original is non est as it is revoking an already revoked CHA licence - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Revocation of CHA license for violation of regulations, validity of impugned order, delay in passing the order

Revocation of CHA license for violation of regulations:
The appeal was against the revocation of the appellant's CHA license by the Commissioner of Customs for an infraction of law by S.P. Exports. The Commissioner initiated an inquiry based on a report indicating inflated values of garments for export. The appellant was charged with violations of Regulations 12, 13(a), and 13(d) of the CHALR. After the inquiry report and a personal hearing, the Commissioner held that the revocation of the CHA license was appropriate. However, the Tribunal found the impugned order to be non est, as the Commissioner had already recorded the revocation of the license in a previous order. The Tribunal held that revoking a license that was already revoked was incorrect and lacked proper application of mind. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

Validity of impugned order:
The Tribunal deemed the impugned order as non est due to the Commissioner's previous revocation of the CHA license in a separate order. The Tribunal emphasized that a revoked license cannot be revoked again, subject to reinstatement by higher authorities. The order revoking the license was considered invalid as it lacked proper reasoning and application of mind. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was incorrect and needed to be set aside, which was done.

Delay in passing the order:
Another aspect considered was the significant delay in passing the order. The CHA license was suspended in 2007, and the order revoking the license was issued in 2013, approximately five years and eight months later. The Tribunal held that such a delay was detrimental to the proceedings. Citing a previous case, the Tribunal emphasized that inordinate delays in concluding proceedings against a CHA are unacceptable. Due to the lengthy delay in this case, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The Tribunal held that the order-in-original was non est as it attempted to revoke an already revoked CHA license.