2017 (3) TMI 159 - AT - Customs

Revenue's Appeals Dismissed Over CHA License Suspension

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals challenging the suspension of CHA licenses under the CHALR 2004, affirming that appeal rights under the ... Revocation of CHA licence - whether the Revenue has right to appeal against the order of Commissioner? - Held that: - the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations, 2004 is a complete code of Regulation by itself and are not being governed by the general provisions of Customs Act - reliance placed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUS., MUMBAI Versus IMPEX CLEARING & SHIPPING AGENCY [2002 (5) TMI 811 - CEGAT, MUMBAI], where it was held that the right to prefer an appeal to the Tribunal under Sec. 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 against an order passed under Regulation 21 or 23 is available only to the CHA - Revenue's appeals dismissed as not maintainable. Issues:- Appeal against suspension of CHA license under CHALR 2004- Maintainability of appeal by Revenue under Customs Act, 1962Analysis:1. The judgment deals with the issue of the Revenue's appeal against the suspension of CHA licenses under the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations, 2004 (CHALR 2004). The Revenue filed appeals challenging the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs revoking the suspension of CHA licenses. The Tribunal noted that the issue in all three appeals was identical and proceeded to dispose of them collectively.2. The respondent's advocate raised a preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal. The advocate argued that the Commissioner's power to revoke the suspension under Regulation 20(3) of CHALR 2004 precluded the Revenue's right to appeal. Citing precedents, the advocate contended that the Revenue had no appeal rights against such orders.3. In response, the Revenue's representative referred to a decision by the Tribunal's Larger Bench in the case of Gaurav Pharma Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, Rohtak, Delhi. The Larger Bench held that certain orders, such as provisional release orders of seized goods under the Customs Act, 1962, were appealable. The Revenue relied on this decision to support their argument for appeal rights.4. The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments from both sides. It acknowledged that the CHALR 2004 constituted a self-contained regulatory framework separate from the general provisions of the Customs Act. Citing previous cases, the Tribunal highlighted that appeal rights under the CHALR 2004 were limited to Customs House Agents (CHAs) and not extended to the Revenue.5. Referring to specific cases like JAC Enterprises and Impex Clearing and Shipping Agency, the Tribunal emphasized that the right to appeal against orders under CHALR 2004 was exclusive to CHAs. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as not maintainable based on the established legal principles and precedents in this regard.6. The Revenue failed to present any contrary decisions by the Tribunal that would challenge the prevailing interpretation regarding appeal rights under CHALR 2004. The Tribunal clarified that the appealable nature of orders related to provisional release of goods, as discussed in the Gaurav Pharma Ltd. case, did not apply to the issue of Revenue's jurisdiction in challenging CHA licensing regulation orders.7. Ultimately, based on the legal precedents and the established interpretation of the CHALR 2004, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals as not maintainable. The judgment was pronounced on 18/01/2017, affirming the exclusive appeal rights of CHAs under the CHALR 2004.