2003 (10) TMI 439 - AT - Customs

CHA Licence Revocation Upheld: Impact on Extended Licences

PURSHOTAM C. THACKAR Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI & KANDLA

PURSHOTAM C. THACKAR Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI & KANDLA - 2004 (163) E.L.T. 41 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues Involved:1. Rejection of renewal application and revocation of Custom House Agent (CHA) licence under Regulation 21 read with Regulation 12 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 (CHALR).2. Validity of extended CHA licence under Regulation 10(2) following the revocation of the parent licence under Regulation 10(1).3. Appeal against a communication from Deputy Commissioner of Customs.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Rejection of Renewal Application and Revocation of CHA LicenceThe appellants, M/s. Purshotam Chaturbhuj Thackar, Gandhidham, held a Custom House Agent (CHA) licence under Regulation 10(1) of the CHALR. Their licence renewal application in 1999 was rejected, and the licence was revoked by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, due to non-fulfillment of business transaction norms at Kandla Custom House for the year 1998-99, as specified in Public Notice No. 21/96 under Regulation 12(2).The appellants argued that the cyclone in Kandla hindered their ability to transact business, which should be considered for condoning the shortfall. However, the Commissioner noted that the port was recommissioned shortly after the cyclone, and thus, the appellants' plea was not valid. Additionally, the appellants contended that their business transactions at Mumbai Custom House should be considered for the renewal of the Kandla licence. The Commissioner rejected this, stating that business at each port must be evaluated independently for renewal purposes.The Tribunal examined precedents, including Amish Shipping Agency v. CCE & CC, Pune and Premier Clearing Agency v. CC (Gen), New Delhi. It was noted that the facts in the Amish Shipping Agency case were distinguishable, and the public notice under Regulation 12(2) applied specifically to the port where the renewal was sought. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that each CHA licence should be evaluated on its own merit at the respective port. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, and the revocation of the CHA licence by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, was upheld.Issue 2: Validity of Extended CHA Licence under Regulation 10(2)The second appeal involved the revocation of the appellants' extended CHA licence under Regulation 10(2) by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai. The Commissioner held that the extended licence under Regulation 10(2) was dependent on the parent licence issued under Regulation 10(1), and thus, the revocation of the parent licence resulted in the automatic lapse of the extended licence.The appellants relied on the Tribunal's decision in Aurotrans Maritime Services (P) Ltd. v. CC, Chennai, which held that revocation of a parent licence does not automatically revoke an extended licence under Regulation 10(2). However, the Tribunal distinguished the facts of the present case, noting that the extended licence under Regulation 10(2) is contingent on the existence of a valid parent licence under Regulation 10(1). The Tribunal clarified that the extended licence is a permission to operate at other ports based on the regular licence at the parent port. Once the parent licence is revoked, the extended licence cannot subsist independently. Thus, the appeal was rejected, and the Commissioner's order revoking the extended licence was upheld.Issue 3: Appeal Against a Communication from Deputy Commissioner of CustomsThe third appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds. The appeal was filed against a communication from the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, which is not an appealable order under the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Only orders passed by a Commissioner or Commissioner (Appeals) can be appealed to the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the revocation of the CHA licence by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, and reaffirmed that the extended licence under Regulation 10(2) lapses upon revocation of the parent licence under Regulation 10(1). The appeal against the communication from the Deputy Commissioner of Customs was dismissed as it was not an appealable order.