2018 (11) TMI 242 - AT - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - whether the Revenue has right to appeal against the order of Commissioner? - Held that - A reference can be made to Tribunal s decision in the case of CC, New Delhi Vs. M/s Sunrise Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (3) TMI 159 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where reliance placed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUS., MUMBAI Versus IMPEX CLEARING & SHIPPING AGENCY 2002 (5) TMI 811 - CEGAT, MUMBAI , where it was held that the right to prefer an appeal to the Tribunal under Sec. 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 against an order passed under Regulation 21 or 23 is available only to the CHA - Revenue s appeal dismissed as not maintainable.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order revoking suspension of Customs House Agent (CHA) under CBLR, 2013 - Maintainability of appeal by Revenue under CHALR, 1984 - Applicability of Tribunal's decisions in similar cases.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Order Revoking Suspension of CHA under CBLR, 2013:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner revoking the suspension of the CHA under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal, arguing that there was no jurisdiction for the Revenue to challenge the Commissioner's order under the CHALR, 1984. The Tribunal referred to various decisions and observed that the CHALR is a self-contained code, and only the remedy provided therein could be utilized.

2. Maintainability of Appeal under CHALR, 1984:
The Tribunal cited precedents like CC, New Delhi Vs. M/s Sunrise Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. and Impex Clearing and Shipping Agency to support the view that the right to prefer an appeal to the Tribunal under Sec. 129A of the Customs Act against an order passed under Regulation 21 or 23 was available only to the CHA. It was emphasized that the CHALR constituted a self-contained code, and appropriate remedies were provided within it against any decision adverse to a CHA. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the grounds of maintainability based on settled legal propositions.

3. Applicability of Tribunal's Decisions in Similar Cases:
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had not presented any contrary decision of the Tribunal under the CHA Licensing Regulation. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's reliance on a Larger Bench decision, stating that it was not relevant to the issue of challenging the order of the adjudicating authority under the CHA Licensing Regulation. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable, in line with the legal principles established in previous cases.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal under the CHALR, 1984, emphasizing the self-contained nature of the CHA Licensing Regulations and the limited right of appeal available to the CHA. The Tribunal's decision was based on settled legal propositions and previous rulings, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.