2017 (3) TMI 129 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA Licence - Jurisdiction - whether the Department have jurisdiction to re-open the case which has been decided in the favour of CHA after the due process of law? - Held that - reopening the case against the appellant CHA after completion of the Original proceedings is not contemplated under CBLR. Commissioner having passed the original order in favour of the appellants cannot reopen the issue with a fresh Show Cause Notice and pass fresh orders revoking the licence. With a passing of the first order, Commissioner becomes Functus Officio and will not enjoy the power to decide the matter afresh - the proprietorship firm terminates with the death of the proprietor and the proceedings against the proprietor would stand abated, no fresh SCN can be issued to the new proprietor - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Revocation of CHA license based on DRI investigation and subsequent Show Cause Notices.
2. Jurisdiction of the department to re-open a case after it has been decided in favor of the appellant.
3. Effect of the death of the proprietor on the proceedings against the CHA firm.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the revocation of the CHA license by the Commissioner of Customs based on a DRI investigation into fraudulent exports of fabrics and garments. The initial suspension of the license was revoked in 2013, but a second Show Cause Notice was issued later, leading to the impugned order revoking the license again. The appellant argued that the department lacked jurisdiction to re-open the case after it had been decided in their favor previously. The Tribunal found that the re-opening of the case was not contemplated under the law, and the Commissioner could not pass fresh orders revoking the license after already deciding in favor of the appellant.

2. The appellant contended that the death of the proprietor terminated the proprietorship firm, and therefore, no fresh Show Cause Notice could be issued to the new proprietor. The Tribunal agreed with this argument, stating that the adjudicating authority was not empowered to issue a second Show Cause Notice on the same set of facts. The Tribunal held that the impugned order revoking the license was not sustainable due to this lack of authority.

3. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, concluding that the revocation of the CHA license was not valid based on the jurisdictional issues and the effect of the proprietor's death on the proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner, having passed the original order in favor of the appellant, could not re-open the case with a fresh Show Cause Notice and pass new orders revoking the license. The Tribunal found that the impugned order was not legally sustainable, leading to the decision to set it aside.