9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellant No.3 in the circumstances when there is gross violation of CHA Licensing Regulations, under which the said licence was granted, on the part of the CHA himself" 3. The matter was placed before this court 06.02.2017 where one of us (Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Jhaveri) was also a party. Time and again, at the request of counsel for the respondent the matter was adjourned i.e. 15.02.2017, 31.05.2017 and today also counsel for the respondent present in the court is stated that respondent is co-operating. 4. Counsel for the appellant has contended as under:- "1. Thus, it appeared that the' CHA firm managed the signature of the exporter, without having authorization' to do so and furnished false statement about the status of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal can dislodge or confirm or modify the order. The vesting of jurisdiction with the tribunal by the statute is beyond any pale of controversy. The dispute pertains to exercise of such jurisdiction. When a jurisdiction is exercised, it has to be exercised in accordance with law, regard being had to the factual matrix of the case. The tribunal having been conferred the power to modify the order, restricting the period of revocation would definitely come within the sweep of the said power. The issue would, as stated earlier, be whether the said jurisdiction has been properly exercised in the case at hand. On a perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner, it is clearly perceptible that there has been number of violations by the Responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n without intent would be sufficient to invite upon the CHA the punishment listed in the Regulations.... We approve the aforesaid observations of the CEGAT, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai and unhesitatingly hold that this misconduct has to be seriously viewed." 5.1 The decision of Gujarat High Court in OTA Kandla Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 2011 (269) E.L.T. 457 (Guj.) wherein it has been held as under:- 2011 (269) E.L.T. 457 (Guj.) "9. Having regard to the rival contentions raised by the learned Counsels for the parties and to the orders passed by Respondent Authorities, it clearly transpires that both the Authorities i.e. the Commissioner of Customs and the CEGAT, after thoroughly discussing the evidence as regards the ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id findings. Even otherwise, the said findings being findings of facts, this Court exercising writ jurisdiction is not inclined to reevaluate the evidence or sit in appeal over the said findings. 14. In view of the above principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments it clearly transpires that the judicial review of administrative action or of proportionality of punishment is permissible only if the decision of the decision maker is found to be illegal, unreasonable, irrational or suffering from any procedural impropriety, and that the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 should not interfere with the legal orders of Administrative Authorities. So far as the facts of the present case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
