2018 (1) TMI 226 - HC - Customs

Renewal of CHA License - rejection on the alleged ground of suppression of a criminal prosecution initiated against the Managing Director of the Petitioner, which is pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore - Held that - all the issues which are involved in the present case being factual, the Petitioner has to necessarily approach the CESTAT by filing appeal against the impugned rejection order passed by the Original Authority - by holding that the Writ Petition is not maintainable, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to file appeal before the CESTAT, challenging the impugned order - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of Customs Broker license renewal based on alleged suppression of criminal prosecution, disclosure of DRI cases, missing original license, doubts regarding Non Traceable certificate's genuineness.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of their Customs Broker license renewal by the 1st respondent. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) initially allowed the petitioner's appeal, directing the restoration of the license. However, in the subsequent round of litigation, the renewal was rejected due to an alleged suppression of a criminal prosecution against the Managing Director of the petitioner. The petitioner contended that they disclosed four Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) cases pending, but the 1st respondent highlighted the undisclosed CBI prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Despite officials being discharged in the CBI case, the renewal was denied.

The key issue was whether the alleged suppression of the criminal case would impact the petitioner's right to renew the Customs Broker license. Additionally, concerns were raised about the missing original license, which the petitioner claimed was supported by a Non Traceable certificate. However, doubts were cast on the certificate's authenticity by the 1st respondent. The court emphasized that the factual issues at hand required the petitioner to appeal to the CESTAT against the rejection order, deeming the Writ Petition as not maintainable. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal before the CESTAT to challenge the rejection order.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the Writ Petition without imposing costs, directing the petitioner to pursue their case through an appeal to the CESTAT.