Court rules Revenue not eligible to appeal license revocation under Customs Act.

The Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 against the revocation of a custom broker's license, holding that the right to appeal under Regulations 21 or 23 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 lies with the custom broker, not the Revenue. Citing precedents, the Court emphasized that the Revenue is not considered "any person aggrieved" under Section 129A concerning orders by the Commissioner of Customs under the CBLR, 2013. The Court upheld established decisions and concluded that the Revenue's appeal lacked merit.

---

---

Issues involved:
The appeal impugned an order rejecting the appellant's appeal under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 on the ground of maintainability.

Summary:
The respondent, a custom broker, faced allegations of fraudulent import of goods by a company named 'M/s Tinna Rubber and International Ltd.' The Commissioner initiated proceedings against the respondent under the CBLR, 2013, leading to the suspension and subsequent revocation of the respondent's Custom Broking License. The Revenue appealed against the revocation order under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 before the CESTAT, following the prescribed procedure.

The main question raised was whether the Revenue had the right to appeal under Section 129A or 129D of the Customs Act, 1962 against orders under Regulations 21 or 23 of the CBLR, 2013. The Court referred to previous decisions, emphasizing that according to Regulation 21 of the CBLR, 2013, the appeal right lies with the Custom Broker and not the Revenue. The Court cited precedents, including Commissioner of Customs (General) v. Falcon India and Commissioner of Customs (General) v. D.S. Cargo Agency, to support the position that the Revenue is not included as "any person aggrieved" under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 concerning orders by the Commissioner of Customs under the CBLR, 2013.

Ultimately, the Court found no reason to deviate from the established decisions and dismissed the appeal, stating that the question of law raised by the Revenue was conclusively decided against them by previous judgments of the Co-ordinate Bench.

---