2008 (1) TMI 379 - HC - Customs

Court upholds CHA license validity, clarifies resignation vs. retirement, stresses compliance with regulations.

The court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the CHA license remains valid unless revoked as per Regulation 20. The judgment clarified the application ... CHA License – change in constitution firm due to resignation of Regulation 8 Pass Holder – applicability of Regulation 15(2) of CHALR, 2004 – Regulation 15(2) would indicate that the license would cease to be in force on the death or retirement of a person - CC (General) made the license of the respondents inoperative - held that the license so issued would continue to be in force for the period of its term, unless it is cancelled or revoked in terms of Regulation 20. On failure to have a qualified person at the highest, it merely becomes inoperative for the time being, but the moment a qualified person is available, then it is open to the holder of the licence to operate the license. The license being personnel to the person on his death it cannot be operated Issues:1. Interpretation of Regulation 15(2) of CHALR, 2004 regarding the circumstances under which a CHA license can be made inoperative.2. Applicability of the proviso to Regulation 15(2) in cases of resignation and the necessity of appointing a qualified person within two years.3. Consideration of Regulations 20 and 11 in relation to the revocation and validity of a CHA license.Analysis:1. The judgment involves the interpretation of Regulation 15(2) of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 (CHALR, 2004) regarding the conditions under which a CHA license can be made inoperative. The case revolved around the resignation of a qualified person appointed by the CHA license holder, leading to the surrender of the pass and subsequent inoperativeness of the license by the Commissioner of Customs.2. The court examined the applicability of the proviso to Regulation 15(2) in cases of resignation and the obligation to appoint a qualified person within two years. It was held that the proviso is triggered in cases of demise or retirement, not resignation. The tribunal's decision to set aside the order making the license inoperative was based on the understanding that the Regulation does not provide for making the license inoperative due to the absence of a qualified person.3. Further analysis focused on Regulations 20 and 11 concerning the revocation and validity of a CHA license. Regulation 20 outlines grounds for revocation, including failure to comply with conditions or misconduct. Since the license was not cancelled or forfeited by the Appellants, Regulation 20 was deemed irrelevant. Regulation 11 establishes the period of validity for a CHA license and the renewal procedure, emphasizing that the license remains in force unless revoked as per Regulation 20.In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the CHA license remains valid unless revoked as per Regulation 20. The judgment clarified the application of Regulation 15(2) and the proviso, highlighting the distinction between resignation and demise/retirement in triggering the proviso. The obligation to appoint a qualified person within two years was underscored, and the necessity of compliance with the regulations for the continued operation of a CHA license was reiterated.