9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 33 - HC - CustomsSuspension of CHA License - Jurisdiction to pass order of suspension - the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Coimbatore, suspended the operation of their CHA Licence No.08/2004, within Coimbatore Customs Formations, for a period of 6 months, with effect from 13.10.2006, vide order, dated 07.11.2006 - principles of Natural Justice - Held that - CESTAT, Chennai, has stated that there is no intimation in Form-C, from the Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore, to Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, based on the regular licence. Therefore, CHA has been transacting business, based on the regular Licence No.11/1134, dated 03.12.1999, issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. Thus, by observing that in the absence of Form-C intimation from the Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore to Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, rights and obligations of CHA, under the abovesaid licence, renewed upto 26.07.2014, would not operate within the jurisdiction of Mumbai and similarly, in the absence of Form-C intimation of Mumbai-licence to the Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore, the rights and obligations of the respondent, under that licence would not have any operation, within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore, CESTAT, Chennai has set aside the suspension order, issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore. There is no ground to reverse the findings of the CESTAT, Chennai - petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the CHA licenses issued under Regulation 10(2) of CHALR, 1984, and Regulation 10(1) are mutually exclusive or extensions of one another. 2. Whether the Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore, had the authority to suspend the CHA license based on actions taken under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Mutual Exclusivity of CHA Licenses The primary question addressed was whether the licenses issued under Regulation 10(2) of CHALR, 1984, based on a regular license under Regulation 10(1), are independent and mutually exclusive. The Tribunal (CESTAT, Chennai) concluded that the licenses were indeed mutually exclusive. It reasoned that the Coimbatore license did not operate within Mumbai's jurisdiction due to the absence of Form-C intimation, and vice versa. This interpretation was based on the provisions of CHALR, 1984, and CHALR, 2004, which required separate licenses for different customs stations unless Form-C intimation was provided. Issue 2: Authority of Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore The Tribunal also examined whether the Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore, could suspend the CHA license based on actions taken under the Mumbai license. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore, did not have the authority to suspend the license issued by him based on grounds related to the Mumbai license. The Tribunal emphasized that each license was independent and that any suspension should be handled by the Commissioner who issued the license or permitted the business within his jurisdiction. Tribunal's Findings: 1. The Tribunal noted that the CHA failed to provide Form-C intimation for either license to the respective Commissioners, making the rights and obligations under each license non-operational outside their respective jurisdictions. 2. It was determined that the Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore, could not suspend the Coimbatore license based on offenses committed under the Mumbai license. 3. The Tribunal also noted that the suspension of the Mumbai license had been set aside and remanded by the Tribunal (West Zonal Bench), indicating further proceedings were required. Rectification Application: The Tribunal dismissed the rectification application filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore, stating that the arguments presented were more appropriate for an appeal rather than a rectification. It reaffirmed its decision that the licenses were independent and mutually exclusive, and any suspension should be based on the jurisdiction of the issuing Commissioner. High Court's Decision: The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, agreeing that the Tribunal had properly appreciated the facts and legal provisions. It found no substantial question of law to reverse the Tribunal's findings. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, affirming that the licenses were mutually exclusive and that the suspension by the Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore, was not justified based on actions under the Mumbai license. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was correct in law and fact, emphasizing the mutual exclusivity of the CHA licenses and the jurisdictional limitations of the Commissioners. The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's order was upheld.
|
