9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 60 - AT - CustomsRevocation of CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - smuggling of prohibited goods - sticks of cigarette were attempted to be smuggled by concealing them in HDPE granules imported - Regulation 20(1) of CHALR, 2004 - HELD THAT - A plain reading of N/N. 65/2013-CUS (NT) dt.21.06.2013 shows that the erstwhile regulations have been completely superseded except in respect of things which were already done. Also, there is no separate savings clause in the CBLR, 2013. Therefore, regardless of the fact that the appellant was licensed prior to the introduction of CBLR, 2013, the present proceedings, having been initiated post 2013, must be proceeded under the new regulations. CHALR, 2004 cannot be invoked as they did not exist during the relevant period. The impugned order is bad in law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Revocation of customs broker license under CHALR, 2004 (now CBLR, 2013). 2. Forfeiture of security deposit by customs authority. 3. Application of regulations in the case post-2013. Analysis: Issue 1: Revocation of customs broker license under CHALR, 2004 (now CBLR, 2013) The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata, revoking the customs broker license of the appellant under Regulation 20(1) of CHALR, 2004 (now Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2013). The adjudicating authority ordered the revocation after the appellant failed to respond during three personal hearings. The authority also noted the appellant's involvement in smuggling activities in previous cases. The appellant argued that their license had already been revoked by a previous order and the license was non-existent on the day of the impugned order. The appellate tribunal found merit in this argument and set aside the impugned order as the license had already been revoked previously. Issue 2: Forfeiture of security deposit by customs authority In addition to revoking the license, the adjudicating authority also ordered the forfeiture of the entire security deposit made by the appellant under Regulation 20(1) of CHALR, 2004 (now Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2013). The tribunal noted that the security deposit had already been forfeited in the earlier order by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata, and there was no record of any higher judicial forum setting aside this forfeiture. Consequently, the tribunal found that the impugned order was invalid as the forfeited amount did not exist anymore due to the earlier order. Issue 3: Application of regulations in the case post-2013 The appellant argued that the license was revoked under the superseded CHALR, 2004, even though the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 were already in place post-2013. The tribunal agreed with this argument, emphasizing that the CBLR, 2013 had replaced the CHALR, 2004, and there was no savings clause in the new regulations. Therefore, the proceedings initiated post-2013 should have been conducted under the new regulations. As a result, the tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling it as invalid in law due to the incorrect invocation of the superseded regulations. In conclusion, the appellate tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order as it was found to be legally flawed.
|
