2006 (4) TMI 160 - HC - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the cancellation of the Custom House Agent (CHA) Licence.
2. Implementation of the Appellate Tribunal's Order No. 53/99.
3. Application for a temporary CHA Licence.
4. Compliance with Regulation 6(a) of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations (CHALR), 1984.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Cancellation of the CHA Licence:
The petitioner firm initially held a CHA Licence issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, which was later converted into a permanent licence. The firm also obtained a licence to operate in Chennai. However, due to a decline in business in Bangalore, the firm did not renew its licence there and decided to focus on Chennai. The second respondent rejected the renewal application for the Chennai licence, citing the non-renewal of the Bangalore licence. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) remanded the matter for de novo adjudication, but the second respondent again cancelled the Chennai licence, leading to an appeal by the petitioner firm.

2. Implementation of the Appellate Tribunal's Order No. 53/99:
The CEGAT, by Order No. 53/99 dated 5-1-1999, directed the second respondent to renew the CHA licence for Chennai. Despite this, the second respondent did not implement the order, prompting the petitioner firm to seek enforcement from the Appellate Tribunal, which reiterated its directive. The second respondent challenged this in W.P. No. 5678/2000, leading to a stay order from the High Court. The High Court eventually granted liberty to the petitioner firm to apply for a temporary CHA licence without delving into the merits of the case.

3. Application for a Temporary CHA Licence:
Following the High Court's direction, the petitioner firm applied for a temporary CHA licence, which was rejected by the second respondent. The rejection was upheld by the first respondent, leading to the present writ petition. The petitioner firm argued that the High Court had not decided on the merits of the case in W.P. No. 5678/2000, and thus the Appellate Tribunal's order remained valid and should have been implemented.

4. Compliance with Regulation 6(a) of CHALR, 1984:
The respondents argued that the individuals indicated in the petitioner's application did not meet the criteria under Regulation 6(a) of CHALR, 1984, which requires the applicant to be a graduate, an employee of a licensee, and possess a permanent pass in Form G with at least three years of relevant experience. The petitioner's application was rejected on these grounds, and this decision was upheld by the Chief Commissioner of Customs.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the order of the CEGAT dated 5-1-1999 had merged with its own order dated 23-11-2000 in W.P. No. 5678/2000, and thus it was not open for the petitioner firm to seek revival of the CEGAT's order. The writ petition was dismissed, and the connected WPMP was closed without costs.

← Previous Next →