2014 (2) TMI 1103 - AT - Customs

Suspension of CHALR License - Retirement of partner - whether Shri Anil Sharma who was qualified to be a licensee under CHALR, 1984 shall cease to be so upon retirement of the partner Shri Harinder Pratap Singh w.e.f. 7-10-2010 - Held that - Perusal of Regulation 3 of CHALR, 2004 throws light that a natural person who is qualified to be a licensee appearing the examination in that behalf and qualifying therein is considered to be a CHA Licensee in terms of Regulation 9 of CHALR, 2004. Such a legal proposition does not oust the appellant from the purview of law to be recognised as CHA licensee who was recognised by 1984 Regulations aforesaid. In fact under Regulation 15, the appellant is specifically allowed to continue his business. There is nothing contrary on record to show that Shri Anil Sharma is incompetent under law of CHALR, 2004. Record also does not reveal as to issuance of any show cause notice questioning his eligibility. Therefore, we do not find any incompetency of the present appellant to continue to be a CHA licensee. Once the eligibility or competency to be a licensee is not found to be contrary to law, the appellant continues to be a licensee as CHA - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of CHALR, 1984 and CHALR, 2004 regarding licensee qualifications
- Effect of partner's retirement on licensee status
- Validity of authority's decision questioning appellant's eligibility

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the question of whether an individual, Shri Anil Sharma, qualified to be a licensee under CHALR, 1984, would lose this status upon the retirement of a partner, Shri Harinder Pratap Singh. The appellant argued that Sharma remained qualified post-retirement, while the authority questioned this eligibility under CHALR, 2004 without valid grounds. The Tribunal examined the relevant regulations and found that Sharma, having been recognized as a licensee under CHALR, 1984, could continue as a CHA licensee under CHALR, 2004. The Tribunal emphasized that Sharma's competency was not challenged, no show cause notice was issued, and there was no evidence of incompetence under CHALR, 2004.

The Tribunal specifically highlighted Regulation 3 of CHALR, 2004, which outlines that a qualified natural person appearing for and passing the examination is considered a CHA licensee under Regulation 9. The judgment concluded that Sharma's eligibility was not contrary to law, and thus, he should be allowed to continue as a licensee. The authority was directed to restore Sharma's license immediately unless there were valid grounds to question his competence, emphasizing the importance of due process and justice in any decision regarding his status.

In the final ruling, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and instructed the authority to issue the license to Sharma in accordance with the law and the findings of the judgment. The decision underscored the need for proper legal basis to challenge an individual's qualifications and highlighted the importance of upholding procedural fairness in such matters.