2017 (6) TMI 1060 - HC - Customs

Revocation of CHA licence - time limit under Regulation 22 of the CHALR for issuance of an SCN - Held that - Regulation 20 provides for suspension or revocation of license and Regulation 22 deals with the procedure therefor. At the time when the Court passed its order dated 25th February, 2015 an SCN had already been issued for the revocation of the Appellant s license. Therefore, this fact was present in the minds of both the counsel for the Appellant as well as the Respondent and naturally of the Court as well. The only thing that remained to be done was to complete the enquiry pursuant to such SCN. The direction issued obviously related to the enquiry that was required to be undertaken for revocation of the Appellant s license. It is for that purpose that the Court then granted more time. When it used the words final orders , it obviously meant the final revocation order. There can be no manner of doubt, therefore, that in para-2 of the order dated 25th February, 2015, the Court contemplated completion of the enquiry proceedings pursuant to the SCN issued for revocation of the Appellant s license and nothing else. If the Appellant was aggrieved by the order of this Court granting extension of time for completion of the enquiry and passing of the revocation order, the Appellant could have further challenged the said order. That, however, was not done by the Appellant. In these circumstances, the CESTAT was right in holding that the Appellant could not thereafter contend that the time limits under Regulation 22 of the CHALR having been breached. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order revoking the Customs House Agent (CHA) license.
2. Interpretation of time limits under Regulation 22 of the CHALR for revocation proceedings.

Issue 1: Challenge to the order revoking the Customs House Agent (CHA) license:
The appeal was filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, contesting the order revoking the Appellant's CHA license by the Commissioner of Customs. The case stemmed from the discovery of foreign brand cigarettes in a container meant for induction cookers, leading to the suspension and subsequent revocation of the Appellant's license. Various regulations of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 were cited in the proceedings. The Appellant's suspension was confirmed by the Respondent, rendering the pending appeal before the CESTAT ineffective. Despite legal challenges and court interventions, the revocation of the license was upheld by the CESTAT in the impugned order dated 9th February 2016.

Issue 2: Interpretation of time limits under Regulation 22 of the CHALR for revocation proceedings:
The crux of the legal debate revolved around the time limits stipulated under Regulation 22(1) of the CHALR for the revocation of a CHA license. The Appellant contended that the time limit of 90 days under Regulation 22(1) was inviolable and could not be extended, even by the Court. However, the Court disagreed, emphasizing that the completion of the enquiry proceedings for revocation was the primary focus when granting an extension. The Court clarified that the direction issued in its previous order pertained to the revocation enquiry and not the suspension issue. Despite the Appellant's dissatisfaction with the extension, the Court upheld the CESTAT's decision, stating that the Appellant had accepted the extended time limits by not challenging them further. Therefore, the CESTAT's decision to reject the Appellant's argument regarding the time limits under Regulation 22 of the CHALR was deemed appropriate.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of the Respondent and affirming the CESTAT's decision. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal proceedings, emphasizing the interpretation of regulations and the application of time limits in revocation proceedings concerning a Customs House Agent license.