2012 (6) TMI 773 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA License - Lending of IEC code for undervaluation done by importers - Held that - CHA licence has been issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Pune. However, in this case the CHA licence has been revoked by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai, who has no jurisdiction over the CHA - Commissioner who has issued the CHA licence is only having the jurisdiction to revoke the CHA license. In this case, we find that the CHA licence has been issued to the appellant by the Commissioner of Customs, Pune and their licence has been revoked by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai, who has no jurisdiction to revoke the CHA licence of the appellant. - Decision in the case of N.C. Singha v. Union of India 2010 (2) TMI 613 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of revocation of CHA license by Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai

In this case, the appellant, a Customs House Agent (CHA), appealed against the revocation of their CHA license by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai. The key issue was whether the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai, had the jurisdiction to revoke the CHA license issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Pune.

Analysis:

The brief facts revealed that the appellant's CHA license was suspended due to their involvement in the clearance of goods imported under-valuation by using IEC codes of other entities. The appellant faced charges under Regulation 13(a), 13(d), and 13(e) of the CHALR, 2004. After an enquiry, it was found that charges under Regulation 13(a) and 13(d) were not proved, but the charge under Regulation 13(e) was established, leading to the revocation of the CHA license.

Upon review, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of jurisdiction in revoking CHA licenses. Citing the case of N.C. Singha v. Union of India, the Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner who issued the CHA license holds the sole authority to revoke it. As the CHA license in question was issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Pune, the Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai, lacked jurisdiction to revoke the license.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order revoking the CHA license No. 11/1310 with immediate effect. The appeal was allowed based on the jurisdictional error in revoking the license. This decision underscores the significance of jurisdictional boundaries in administrative actions, ensuring that the authority responsible for issuing a license retains the power to revoke it, as established by relevant legal precedents.

This judgment serves as a reminder of the procedural requirements and jurisdictional limitations governing the revocation of licenses, safeguarding the rights of license holders and upholding the principles of administrative law.