2013 (9) TMI 858 - HC - Customs

Customs House Agent license suspension exceeded, ruled invalid. Petitioner can resume business activities under license.

The High Court held that the suspension of the Customs House Agent (CHA) license exceeded the specified 15-day period, rendering it invalid. The Court ... Suspension of CHA Licence under Regulation 20(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 - Held that:- Once the suspension order was set aside, in the absence of any stay the petitioner was entitled to carry on the business under the CHA licence granted to the petitioner - the Commissioner was directed to implement the order of the Tribunal forthwith so as to enable the petitioner to carry on business under the CHA licence - the direction to implement the decision of the Tribunal shall not in any way affect the right of the Revenue to challenge the decision of the Tribunal if permissible in law or to pass any other order as was permissible in law. Issues:1. Suspension of CHA license under Regulation 20(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004.2. Validity of suspension order beyond the specified 15-day period.3. Implementation of CESTAT order setting aside the suspension.4. Right of Revenue to challenge CESTAT decision.Analysis:The High Court addressed the issue of the suspension of the Customs House Agent (CHA) license under Regulation 20(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004. The petitioner's CHA license was suspended by an ex parte order dated 23rd May, 2012, and the suspension was continued post a decisional hearing by an order dated 18th June, 2012. The Court noted that the suspension order was passed beyond the 15-day period specified in the Regulation, as the offence report was received on 25th April, 2012. The Court highlighted that the CESTAT, in its order dated 10th July, 2012, held that the suspension order cannot be sustained due to exceeding the specified time limit.Regarding the validity of the suspension order beyond the specified 15-day period, the Court emphasized that once the suspension order is set aside, in the absence of any stay, the petitioner is entitled to continue business under the CHA license. The Court directed the Commissioner to implement the CESTAT order promptly to enable the petitioner to resume business activities under the CHA license in question. The Court made it clear that this direction does not impede the Revenue's right to challenge the CESTAT decision if permissible by law or to take any other lawful action.In addressing the implementation of the CESTAT order setting aside the suspension, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the specified time limits under the Regulations. The Court's decision aimed to ensure that the petitioner could continue operating under the CHA license without hindrance following the CESTAT's order.Lastly, the Court acknowledged the Revenue's right to challenge the CESTAT decision within the bounds of the law. The Court's ruling, while allowing the petitioner to resume business activities, did not restrict the Revenue from pursuing legal avenues available to challenge the CESTAT decision or take any other lawful actions. The Court concluded by making the rule absolute in the specified terms, with no order as to costs, thereby providing a comprehensive resolution to the issues raised in the case.