Station-wise CHA renewal norms and derivative work permissions depend on a valid parent licence and appealable orders.

Custom House Agent renewal norms were held to operate station-wise, so business transacted at one Customs station could not be clubbed with business at another station to meet the prescribed renewal threshold. Permission to work at additional Customs stations under Regulation 10(2) was treated as derivative of a valid parent licence, so revocation of the parent licence also ended that permission. A mere communication by the Deputy Commissioner was not treated as an appealable order, as only orders of the Commissioner or Commissioner (Appeals) could be carried to the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the volume of business transacted by a Custom House Agent at one Customs station could be clubbed with business transacted at another station for satisfying the renewal norms prescribed for the station where renewal was sought; (ii) whether permission to work at another Customs station under Regulation 10(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 survived after revocation of the parent licence under Regulation 10(1); (iii) whether an appeal lay against a mere communication of the Deputy Commissioner.

Issue (i): Whether the volume of business transacted by a Custom House Agent at one Customs station could be clubbed with business transacted at another station for satisfying the renewal norms prescribed for the station where renewal was sought.

Analysis: The renewal norm was tied to the public notice issued by the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the concerned Customs station. The business done at that station had to satisfy the prescribed threshold on its own. Transactions at other ports could not be imported to satisfy the renewal requirements of a different station, because each licence and each local renewal regime operated independently.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Clubbing of business between different Customs stations was not permitted for renewal.

Issue (ii): Whether permission to work at another Customs station under Regulation 10(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 survived after revocation of the parent licence under Regulation 10(1).

Analysis: A licence under Regulation 10(1) and permission under Regulation 10(2) were treated as distinct in source but linked in operation. Permission to work at additional Customs stations was founded on the existence of a valid parent regular licence. Once the parent licence ceased to exist by revocation, the derivative permission could not continue independently, since that would create an unequal and unintended advantage over other licensees.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Revocation of the parent licence also brought the derivative permission to an end.

Issue (iii): Whether an appeal lay against a mere communication of the Deputy Commissioner.

Analysis: The communication challenged was not an order of the Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals), and only orders of those authorities were appealable to the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal sustained the refusal to renew and the revocation of the CHA licence, and it also declined to entertain the appeal arising from the non-appealable communication.

---