9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of obligations cast on the CHA under Regulations 13 and 19(8) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 (CHALR, for short). Against the Commissioner s order, which was passed under Regulation 20(2) of CHALR, the appellants filed Writ Petition No. 4765 of 2006 in the High Court of Judicature at Madras and the Hon ble High Court disposed of the writ petition as per order dated 23-2-2006. The operative part of the High Court s order reads as under :- Though the learned counsel for the petitioner advanced length arguments, the only objection which can be sustained is that the respondent has suspended the CHA license with immediate effect until further orders without specifying any time limit. There cannot be a suspension un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m since expired on 21-3-2006, in terms of Regulation 20(1) of CHALR, 2004 and order forfeiture of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousan Only) deposited by them in the form of Fixed Deposit receipt issued by Bharat Overseas Bank. The present appeal is directed against the above order of the Commissioner. 2. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we note that, the validity period of the CHA licence had expired on 21-3-2006 during the interregnum between the date of the High Court s order and the date of the impugned order of the Commissioner. That the licence was due to expire on 21-3-2006 had not been brought to the notice of Hon ble High Court. Be that as it may, the crucial fact to be taken into account by us is that the licenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iture of security deposit furnished by a CHA can be made by jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs only in connection with revocation of the CHA licence. We have already held that a non-existent licence (like the one involved in this case) cannot be revoked effectually. It would follow that the order for forfeiture of security is unsustainable. As it is an admitted fact that the appellants never applied for renewal of the licence, the security deposit is liable to be refunded to them. We set aside the forfeiture and allow the appeal to this extent. Though we have found against the suspension/revocation of the licence, we are not inclined to set it aside for the reason that, by doing so, the appellants are not getting any realisable relief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
