Exclusive Jurisdiction in CHA License Revocation Upheld by Tribunal

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai lacked jurisdiction to revoke a Custom House Agent (CHA) license issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi. Emphasizing that the issuing Commissioner holds exclusive revocation authority under Regulation 9(2) of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, the Tribunal set aside the revocation order. The decision highlighted the importance of aligning jurisdiction in CHA license revocation cases, clarifying that it did not impact proceedings initiated by the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi. The appeal was allowed, stressing the need for adherence to jurisdictional boundaries in such matters.

---

---

Issues:
Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai to revoke CHA license issued by Commissioner of Customs, Delhi under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004.

Analysis:
The appellant, a Custom House Agent (CHA), challenged the revocation of their CHA license by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, arguing lack of jurisdiction as the license was issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi. The appellant relied on a Tribunal decision stating that revocation proceedings should be initiated by the issuing Commissioner. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner of Customs where the license was issued holds jurisdiction for revocation. They cited a High Court judgment supporting this view. The Tribunal focused solely on jurisdiction, noting that the proceedings were initiated by the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi, and refrained from delving into the case's merits. The Tribunal referenced a previous case where it was held that revocation by a Commissioner without jurisdiction was impermissible.

The Tribunal found that the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai lacked jurisdiction to initiate revocation proceedings for a CHA license issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi. Referring to Regulation 9(2) of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, which allows a CHA to operate in all Customs stations upon intimation to the respective Commissioner, the Tribunal emphasized that the issuing Commissioner holds exclusive revocation authority. Citing the lack of provision for cross-jurisdictional permissions in the regulations, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable. Despite setting aside the order, the Tribunal clarified that its decision did not affect proceedings initiated by the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, highlighting the need for jurisdictional alignment in CHA license revocation cases.

---