2002 (4) TMI 773 - AT - Customs

Tribunal overturns customs license revocation due to partnership dispute, ruling in favor of appellant

The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order revoking the customs license and ordering forfeiture of security deposit based on alleged misconduct ... Adjudication - Jurisdiction - Customs House Agent - Licence - Revocation of licence Issues: Revocation of customs license and forfeiture of security deposit based on alleged misconduct and misinformation about partnership dissolution.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed against the order revoking the customs license and ordering forfeiture of security based on alleged misconduct related to misinformation about partnership dissolution.2. The appellant, Shri Ashwani Sareen, was the proprietor of M/s. NIP, formerly part of M/s. ARC with partners Kartik Naidu and Santosh Reddy. Customs granted a temporary license to M/s. ARC with a condition that only Shri Ashwani Sareen would transact customs work. Later, Shri Ashwani Sareen informed Customs about M/s. ARC's dissolution and obtained a regular license for M/s. NIP.3. An inquiry concluded that Shri Ashwani Sareen did not act prejudicially, but the Commissioner still revoked the license and ordered forfeiture. The appellant argued that disputes about partnership dissolution should be resolved through arbitration or civil court, not by Customs.4. The Commissioner's order was based on the allegation that Shri Ashwani Sareen provided incorrect information about the partnership dissolution, constituting misconduct. The appellant contended that the revocation was unjustified as he did not violate CHA Licensing Regulations.5. The Tribunal found that Shri Ashwani Sareen fulfilled licensing conditions and did not commit misconduct affecting revenue. The dispute over partnership dissolution was deemed outside Customs jurisdiction, as per legal precedent.6. The Tribunal held that revoking the license solely based on partnership disputes was improper. The Commissioner's order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per the law.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, findings of the inquiry, legal interpretations, and the final decision by the Tribunal to set aside the Commissioner's order.