9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 1224 - HC - CustomsApplication for renewal of CHA Chennai license - license issued at Vishakapatnam and their branch license registered with Chennai Customs - expiry of Chennai license - respondent allowed to operate as CHA in Chennai Customs under Regulation 10(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations (CHALR), 1984, on the basis of CHA licence issued to them, under Regulation 10(1) of the said Regulations, by Visakapatnam Customs - whether, merely because, the Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Import), the licencing authority, has acted as an adjudicating authority, to adjudge an issue, as to whether, the 1st respondent is entitled to get the licence, issued by the Commissionerate, Chennai, renewed under Regulation 10(2), irrespective of the fact that when the original licence, at Vizag Customs has not been renewed, whether the duty to be discharged by him, at the time of considering a renewal application is adjudicatory or administrative, in nature? The decision in the case of GAJRAJ SINGH Versus STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 1996 (9) TMI 607 - Supreme Court Of India has been relied upon. It was held that adjudication is not required, while considering a renewal application. Grant or renewal of licence, is administrative in nature. Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962, provides for an appeal. Bare reading of the Section may indicate that any decision or order passed by the adjudicating authority, can be appealed to the Tribunal. The Regulations dealing with grant of licence for renewal should be harmoniously read with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and should be given the effect, in conformity with the legislative intent. On the principle of harmonious construction and going through the entire Regulations, it was held that an order, rejecting an application for renewal, is administrative in nature. The Tribunal held that the appeal filed against the order, on the application to renew the licence issued to the Customs House Agent, under the CHALR, 1984 or 2004, as the case may be, is not maintainable - no interference required with the order of the Tribunal - appeal dismissed - decided in favor of respondent.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the order of CESTAT considering the matter of CHALR, 2004 under the Customs Act, 1962 as an administrative matter is correct as per law. 2. Whether the order of the tribunal passed in the Auro Trans case merged with the order of the High Court and cannot be a precedent. Comprehensive Issue-wise Analysis: Issue 1: Administrative vs. Quasi-Judicial Nature of Renewal Orders The core issue revolves around whether the renewal of a Customs House Agent (CHA) license is an administrative or quasi-judicial act. The Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Import) granted renewal of the CHA license based on the performance indicators and the ratio laid down by the CESTAT in the Auro Trans case, treating the branch CHA license as independent. The Committee of Chief Commissioners, however, directed a review of this decision, arguing that the renewal should align with the validity of the main license and that the Auro Trans case applied only to renewals before CHALR, 2004. The Tribunal (CESTAT) dismissed the appeal by the Commissioner of Customs, maintaining that the renewal of a CHA license is an administrative act and not quasi-judicial, hence not appealable before the Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision was based on precedents such as A.S. Vasan & Sons and M.Dutta Agency cases, which held that orders related to the renewal of CHA licenses are administrative. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's view, emphasizing that the licensing authority's role in renewal applications is administrative. The Court referred to various judgments, including the Supreme Court's decision in Province of Bombay v. K.S. Advani, which distinguished between administrative and quasi-judicial acts. The Court concluded that the process of granting or renewing a license does not involve adjudication but is purely administrative, aimed at ensuring compliance with prescribed conditions. Issue 2: Precedential Value of Auro Trans CaseThe appellant argued that the Auro Trans case should not be considered a precedent as it merged with the High Court's order in a subsequent writ petition. However, the Tribunal and the High Court did not find merit in this argument. The High Court noted that the decision in the Auro Trans case was correctly applied by the Commissioner of Customs in the renewal process. The Court also observed that the regulatory framework under CHALR, 1984 and 2004, does not envisage an adjudicatory process for license renewal, reinforcing the administrative nature of such decisions. Conclusion:The High Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, supporting the Tribunal's stance that the renewal of a CHA license is an administrative matter and not quasi-judicial. The Court held that the regulatory scheme and the relevant legal provisions do not provide for an appeal against the renewal of a CHA license, thus upholding the administrative nature of the renewal process.
|
