2022 (9) TMI 1628 - AT - Customs

Principle of double jeopardy - Revocation of suspension of CHA licence - completion of proceeding if initiated under Regulation 22 of the CHALR, 2004 within 3 months - mis-declaration in shipping bill - HELD THAT - The principle of double jeopardy, be that enforceable under Article 20 Clause 2 of the Indian Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would only be taken as a shield against completion of trial or prosecution that resulted in conviction or acquittal, so as to prevent a subsequent trial or prosecution but it has no application to different trials or parallel proceedings in different forms for the same set of facts. In the instant case the proceeding against the Appellant was not concluded at the first instance within the time limit prescribed for such completion got over. Therefore, the protection available under double jeopardy, though can only be extended by Constitutional Courts, would not come to the rescue of the present Appellant since the first proceeding had not been completed but was aborted. When there is a clear finding of the CESTAT that in such an event of noncompletion of the proceedings under CHALR, the order of suspension of CHA licence of the Appellant would stand revoked and it was revoked also by the Commissioner of Customs on 26.04.2012. But keeping such revocation a conditional one till the outcome of inquiry being contemplated under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004, that is found absent in the order of CESTAT passed on dated 15.12.2011 is arbitrary has beyond the competency of the Commissioner of Customs. The order passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Customs passed under Regulation 27 of CHALR, 2004 in revoking the CHA License of the Appellant and forfeiting the security deposit is hereby set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues: Revocation of suspension of CHA license, Principle of double jeopardy, Compliance with CESTAT order

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, the issue of revocation of suspension of a Customs House Agent (CHA) license is discussed. The case involves the suspension of a CHA license in 2011 due to mis-declaration in a shipping bill, which led to a series of events including appeals and orders. The Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai revoked the suspension in 2012, subject to the outcome of an inquiry. Subsequent penalties and inquiries were imposed on the Appellant, leading to the revocation of the CHA license again in 2019. The Appellant challenged this revocation, citing the principle of double jeopardy and non-compliance with the earlier CESTAT order. The Tribunal analyzed the situation, considering the applicability of double jeopardy and the actions taken by the authorities. It was found that the revocation of the license in 2019 was arbitrary and beyond the Commissioner's competence, leading to the setting aside of the order revoking the CHA license and forfeiting the security deposit.

The first issue addressed in the judgment is the revocation of the suspension of the CHA license. The Appellant's license was initially suspended in 2011 following mis-declaration in a shipping bill. Despite appeals and orders, the suspension was revoked in 2012 by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai, subject to the outcome of an inquiry. Subsequent penalties and inquiries were imposed on the Appellant, ultimately leading to the revocation of the CHA license again in 2019. The Appellant challenged this revocation, arguing that it was irregular and forbidden by the principle of double jeopardy. The Tribunal examined the events leading to the revocation and found that the revocation in 2019 was arbitrary and beyond the Commissioner's competency. Therefore, the order revoking the CHA license and forfeiting the security deposit was set aside.

The second issue raised in the judgment is the principle of double jeopardy. The Appellant contended that the subsequent penalties and inquiries imposed on them were in violation of the principle of double jeopardy as per Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution and Article 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Appellant argued that they could not be subjected to further inquiry and action after a gap of 8 years, especially considering the specific direction of the CESTAT Mumbai to restore their license if the inquiry was not concluded within three months. The Tribunal analyzed the principle of double jeopardy and its applicability in the present case. It was held that the protection under double jeopardy is against subsequent trials or prosecutions for the same set of facts, which did not apply in this situation. The Tribunal found that the revocation of the license in 2019 was not justified based on the principle of double jeopardy.

The third issue discussed in the judgment is the compliance with the CESTAT order. The Tribunal reviewed the actions taken by the authorities in response to the CESTAT order directing the completion of the inquiry within three months. It was observed that the revocation of the license in 2019, which was conditional on the outcome of an inquiry, was not in line with the CESTAT order. The Tribunal found that the revocation was arbitrary and beyond the Commissioner's competency. As a result, the order revoking the CHA license and forfeiting the security deposit was set aside, emphasizing the importance of compliance with tribunal directives and legal procedures.