2016 (1) TMI 878 - AT - Customs

Renewal of nonest Custom House Agent License - CHALR 2004 - Held that - In the present case the appellant had failed to appoint a Regulation 8/9 qualified employee before the expiry of the license. As the license had already expired it did not remain an issue of being non operative it was a matter of license becoming nonest as held by the Commissioner. Therefore we do not find any fault in the order of the Commissioner. - Decided against the appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Renewal of Customs Broker License under CBLR 2013 - Interpretation of Regulation 15(2) regarding resignation and retirement - Maintainability of appeal against Commissioner's order - Scope of appeals under Section 146(2) of the Customs Act - Comparison with previous court judgments.

Analysis:

Renewal of Customs Broker License under CBLR 2013:
The case involved a company holding a Customs Broker License under the CHALR 2004, now CBLR 2013, which became inoperative due to the resignation of a Regulation 8 qualified employee. The company failed to appoint a replacement before the license expired on 31.12.2013. The Commissioner rejected the renewal request citing non-satisfactory performance due to non-operational business. The appellant argued that resignation should be considered akin to retirement under Regulation 15(2) and relied on precedents to support their case.

Interpretation of Regulation 15(2) regarding resignation and retirement:
The appellant contended that resignation should be equated with retirement under Regulation 15(2) for license renewal purposes. They cited the case of Commissioner of Customs (General) Mumbai Vs. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd. to support their argument. The appellant also highlighted the provision in Regulation 13(2) allowing a two-year period for appointing a replacement after retirement or demise, which had not expired in their case.

Maintainability of appeal against Commissioner's order:
The Commissioner's decision to reject the renewal request was challenged through an appeal. The issue of the appeal's maintainability was raised, questioning whether the matter fell under the scope of appeals as per Section 146(2) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal analyzed the regulatory framework and concluded that the appeal did not pertain to suspension or revocation of the license, thus rendering it non-maintainable.

Scope of appeals under Section 146(2) of the Customs Act:
The Tribunal delved into the legislative intent behind Section 146(2) of the Customs Act, emphasizing that appeals were limited to matters of suspension or revocation of licenses. Extending the scope of appeals to license renewal could lead to undesirable consequences, such as appealing even the grant of licenses. The Tribunal referenced the judgment in S.R. Sale & Co. case to support its interpretation of the statutory provisions.

Comparison with previous court judgments:
The Tribunal distinguished the present case from previous judgments, such as Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd. and Premier Shipping Agencies, highlighting the specific circumstances and legal principles involved. The Tribunal emphasized the binding nature of the judgment in S.R. Sale & Co. as per jurisdictional High Court precedent, underscoring the importance of adhering to established legal interpretations.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found the appeal non-maintainable, aligning its decision with the regulatory framework and legal precedents cited during the proceedings. The judgment was pronounced on 10/11/2015 by the Tribunal.