Tribunal restores CHA license due to lack of evidence, appellant's authority over subletting, and absence from business.

The tribunal set aside the revocation of the CHA license, restoring it with immediate effect. The decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting subletting allegations against the appellant, as the activities of the G and H card holders were found to be conducted under the appellant's authority. Previous tribunal decisions and the appellant's absence from business for over three years also influenced the outcome, with the tribunal finding no merit in the revocation order.

---

---

Issues:
Revocation of CHA license based on subletting allegations.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the revocation of their CHA license due to allegations of subletting. The appellant was accused of allowing various G and H card holders to conduct business at a specific location. The appellant's counsel argued that the license had been previously canceled and restored, and the current allegations were based on assumptions. The appellant claimed that the G and H card holders were employees providing logistic services under the appellant's authority, not subletting the license. The appellant requested relevant documents and cross-examination, which were not fully provided during the proceedings.

The respondent argued that the appellant did not interact directly with importers/exporters, did not issue invoices, and received payments from the G and H card holders for clearance services, indicating subletting. Citing legal precedents, the respondent supported the revocation of the license. Upon hearing both parties, the tribunal had to determine whether the activities of the G and H card holders constituted subletting. The tribunal analyzed previous cases cited by the respondent and found them not directly applicable to the current situation.

In a similar case, the tribunal found that the appellant had not sublet their license to another entity, as the G card holder was an employee and acted on behalf of the appellant. The tribunal concluded that the charge of subletting was not proven based on the activities conducted by the G and H card holders. Considering the appellant's absence from business for over three years and previous tribunal decisions, the tribunal set aside the revocation order, restoring the CHA license with immediate effect.

Overall, the tribunal found no merit in the revocation order, considering the circumstances and previous rulings. The decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the subletting allegations and the nature of the activities conducted by the G and H card holders under the appellant's authority.

---