9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1319 - AT - CustomsSuspension of CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - DEPB Claim - misdeclaration of an export consignment of rubber strips - case of Revenue is that though the adjudicating authority has held that the CHA (the respondent herein) was guilty of non-observance of the procedures laid down in the CHALR, 2004, but has taken a lenient view of ordering only forfeiture of security deposit and allowed the licence to become operative on making fresh deposit - Held that - The present impugned order was passed by the learned Commissioner of Customs in his administrative capacity and not in context with matter relating to levy of tax. Since such order was passed under the CHALR, 1984, the author of such order cannot be termed as an adjudicating authority, whose order can be appealed against before the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, in absence of any specific provisions made in the Customs statute, the present appeal filed by Revenue is not maintainable before the Tribunal. Under the identical situation, the Tribunal in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL) , MUMBAI VERSUS MUKADAM FREIGHT SYSTEMS PVT LTD 2017 (5) TMI 798 - CESTAT MUMBAI has held that right to appeal against the CHALR, 1984 before the Tribunal is only available to the CHA and Revenue cannot be termed as an aggrieved party against the decision concerning the licensing regulations for filing appeal before the Tribunal - Revenue s appeal is not maintainable before this Tribunal for consideration of the grounds urged therein. The appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed on the grounds of maintainability.
Issues:
Revenue's appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai regarding the forfeiture of security deposit and reinstatement of CHA license. Analysis: The case involved the respondent, a Custom House Agent (CHA), whose CHA license was suspended due to a case of misdeclaration in an export consignment. The respondent's license was suspended under Regulation 10(1) of the CHALR, 1984. The Department alleged violations of Regulations 13(a), 13(b), 13(d), and 13(n) of the CHALR, 2004. The Enquiry Officer found the charges not maintainable, leading to the impugned order dated 5.4.2011, forfeiting the security deposit and requiring a fresh deposit for license reinstatement. The Revenue challenged the order, arguing that while the CHA was found guilty of non-observance of procedures, the penalty of only forfeiting the security deposit was lenient. The Revenue contended that the license should not have been reinstated upon a fresh deposit. The Revenue's appeal was based on the grounds of the leniency of the penalty imposed. During the hearing, the respondent argued that the Commissioner's order, passed under Regulation 22(7) of the CHALR, 2004, was not appealable before the Tribunal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent cited precedents to support the position that only the licensee could appeal under the CHALR, 1984. The respondent contended that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable based on the lack of provisions allowing Revenue to appeal regarding licensing regulations. The Tribunal analyzed the Customs Act, 1962, particularly Chapter XV, which governs appeals and revisions. Section 129A allows appeals to the Appellate Tribunal against decisions by the Commissioner of Customs as an adjudicating authority. The Tribunal determined that the Commissioner's order was administrative, not related to tax levy, and hence the author of the order was not an adjudicating authority. Citing previous cases, the Tribunal held that only the CHA had the right to appeal under the CHALR, 1984, and Revenue could not be considered an "aggrieved party" regarding licensing regulations. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the absence of specific provisions in the Customs statute. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed Revenue's appeal on the grounds of maintainability, emphasizing that Revenue could not appeal against the decision concerning licensing regulations before the Tribunal. This judgment highlights the importance of specific provisions governing appeals and the distinction between administrative decisions and adjudicatory orders under the Customs Act, 1962.
|
