2025 (7) TMI 1348 - AT - Customs

Appeal Dismissed for CHA License Renewal Rejection Due to Non-Compliance with High Court Directions

The CESTAT Chennai dismissed the appeal against the rejection of the CHA license renewal. The appellant failed to comply with the High Court's directions ... Suspension of CHA License - rejection of application of renewal of license - appellant did not honour the directions of the HHC nor did it appear on the appointed date - HELD THAT:- It appears that the appellant not accepting the above order of the HHC field a Writ Appeal in No. 295 of 2015; the HHC vide judgment dated 19.02.2020 having not found anything wrong in the order of Ld. Single judge, however, gave a lifer to the CHA to appear before the authorities concerned on 10.03.2020 without awaiting for any hearing notice; and the authority shall pass its reasoned order on merits after hearing, in accordance with law within a period of two weeks thereafter. The other strange aspect noted is that there is no admission anywhere by the appellant, in its writ appeal proceedings, as to the challenge to the order of commissioner refusing to renew the license before this bench, which was filed vide ack dated 15.05.2015 and therefore, the HHC has not interfered with the order dated 17.02.2015. This is perhaps for the reason of not bringing to the notice of the HHC about the same, otherwise, the HHC would not have directed the appellant to appear before the authority without notice. So, understanding here is that as on that, the order dated 17.02.2015 has remained unchallenged and thus the CHA’s application for renewal of license stands rejected. Till the date of hearing, the Appellant-CHA through its counsel has not made available as to the outcome of the proceedings on the appointed day as directed by the HHC and in any case, whatever has happened is a subsequent development which may have an independent cause of action and hence, we are of the view that this appeal cannot survive especially in the light of the judgement of HHC in WA and the order rejecting renewal of license having become final. Appeal dismissed. ISSUES: Whether the order suspending the Customs House Agent (CHA) license was valid and in accordance with law.Whether the refusal to renew the CHA license following non-cooperation with enquiry proceedings and non-compliance with High Court directions was justified.Whether the statutory appeal against the suspension and refusal of renewal of license could be entertained given the pendency and outcome of writ petitions and appeals before the High Court. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The suspension of the CHA license under Regulation 20(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 (CHALR 2004) was upheld as the appellant failed to cooperate with enquiry proceedings and did not comply with the High Court's directions.The refusal to renew the CHA license was held to be valid and final since the appellant did not honour the High Court's order to appear for enquiry and the rejection order dated 17.02.2015 remained unchallenged before the High Court.The statutory appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal was dismissed on the ground that the order rejecting renewal had become final and the appellant had not disclosed the pendency or challenge of the refusal order before the High Court, which affected the consideration of the appeal. RATIONALE: The Court applied the provisions of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, framed under Section 146 of the Customs Act, 1962, particularly Regulations 20(2) and 22 relating to suspension and enquiry procedures.The Court relied on the High Court's orders directing the appellant to cooperate with enquiry and the principle that non-compliance with judicial directions and failure to appear for enquiry justify continuation of suspension and refusal of license renewal.The Court emphasized the finality of the order dated 17.02.2015 rejecting renewal due to non-cooperation, noting the absence of any effective challenge to that order before the High Court, which precluded further relief by the Appellate Tribunal.No dissent or doctrinal shift was noted; the decision followed established regulatory and procedural norms governing CHA licensing and judicial review thereof.