9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the argument of the appellant about the order penalising him with the penalty of rupees Twenty Five Thousand is beyond the one month, is not sustainable - The penalty has been imposed under Regulation 11 (a) (d) and (m) for CBLR 2013 same is sufficient to hold the CHA had not satisfactorily observed the obligations of the impugned Regulations the same is a definite basis for the competent authority to arrive at a satisfaction for the application to be entitled for renewal of CHA licence. The above noticed violation on the part of the appellant and the imposed penalty upon him, to our opinion, is sufficient for the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs, whom the application for renewal of licence was made, to reject the same. Proviso 2 Rule 9 of CBLR 2018 mentions that renewal procedure of the license CHA shall be in accordance with the procedure specified in sub Regulation 2 thereof. Perusal of said sub Regulation 2, makes it clear that there is no specific procedure of the application except that while granting the license the competent authority has to be satisfied about the performance of the CHA during the period of his previous license for properly observing th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... existence but still the show Cause Notice was served and even the order under challenge has been announced under the new Regulations i.e. CBLR 2018 Section 159 of the Customs Act and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act has been impressed upon. In addition to given case laws in case of Satya Nand Jha vs. Union of India [2017 (349) ELT A155 (SC)] in the case of Isak Ibineswar vs. Chairman, CBEC, New Delhi [2009 (237) ELT 644 (Mad.)] has been relied upon to emphasise that the cut of date of any repealed legislation has to be the criteria while finalizing the applicability of the amended law and where any application has been moved under the repealed law it is the previous one which shall be applicable. Learned Counsel has also impressed upon that as per the regulation 9 (2) of CBLR 2018, the time limit to be taken to count any mis-conduct is only of one month. it is impressed upon that there is no apparent mis-conduct on the part of the appellant during one month of the application. Whatever mis-conduct that has been made the basis of impugned rejection is much beyond the said period of one month. From that prospective also, the order under challenge is prayed to be set aside. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the CHA licence that has been set aside. However, the order is clear to recite that there was the lapse on the part of the CHA though it being the first lapses and CHA firm being long established the suspension of the licence and the proposed revocation was set aside. 6. Now, coming to the order as impressed upon by the appellant wherein no penalty has been imposed upon, we observe that the Commissioner while adjudicating under the Customs Act has held that appellant s license was not revoked while imposing penalty under Regulation 22 of CBLR 2013 on the ground that M/s Vinayak Cargo was not involved in the said fraudulent export. But in view of above noticed finding in previous order under CBLR, 2013 about imposition of penalty this findings of Commissioner is apparently contradictory. Actually lapse was noticed on the part of the M/s Vinayak Cargo appellant, it is merely due to the benefit of his long existence as CHA and that the lapse being first that the licence was not revoked. Hence to our opinion these finding cannot be made the basis to extend benefit to the favour of the appellant with reference to present adjudication. The fact remains is that appellant/CHA ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd (f) of Regulation 14 of CBLR. 7. In the present case the appellant had applied for renewal of his licence after the expiry of ten years of the licence as was granted to him to work as Customs House Agent/ Customs Broker, vide his letter dated 21/03/2018. The appellant is aggrieved of the rejection of his request vide the said letter. We observe that Regulation 9(1) of CBLR 2013/2018 talks about the renewal of the license from time to time in accordance with the procedure specified in the sub Regulation 9(2) which reads with as follows; (2) Subject to the provisions of Regulation 7, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs may, on an application made by the licensee before the expiry of the validity of the license under sub-regulation (1), renew the license for a further period of ten years from the date of expiration, if the performance of the licensee is found to be satisfactory with reference, inter alia to the obligations specified in this regulation including the absence of instances of any complaints of misconduct within one month of the date of receipt of application. Provided that where the Customs Broker fails to submit the application for renewa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the period of his previous license for properly observing the obligations specified in this Regulations. Thus, irrespective of Regulation 9 being silent about the applicability of Regulation 5 CBLR as far as the conditions to be fulfilled by the applicants for the licensee to act as a Customs Broker in a Custom conditions are concerned. Absence of any of the condition as mentioned therein will, therefore, also be a ground for Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs to arrive at the satisfaction as mentioned therein in Regulation 9(2) CBLR 2013/2018. The case law as relied upon by the appellant, therefore, is not opined to be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. We rather draw our support from now will continue to both these decisions. 9. Finally coming to the argument of doubt jeopardy as put forth by the appellant that we are of the opinion that said ground is not sustainable in the given circumstances as non renewal of license under Section 9 Sub-Rule 2 of CBLR and the revocation thereof are two different things. For this reason, the ground taken by appellant that the license has not been revoked but the suspension thereof, does not exten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
