https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212282 The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai lacked jurisdiction to revoke a Custom House Agent (CHA) license issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi. Emphasizing that the issuing Commissioner holds exclusive revocation authority under Regulation 9(2) of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, the Tribunal set aside the revocation order. The decision highlighted the importance of aligning jurisdiction in CHA license revocation cases, clarifying that it did not impact proceedings initiated by the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi. The appeal was allowed, stressing the need for adherence to jurisdictional boundaries in such matters. en-us Thu, 04 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Aug 2013 14:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212282 The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai lacked jurisdiction to revoke a Custom House Agent (CHA) license issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi. Emphasizing that the issuing Commissioner holds exclusive revocation authority under Regulation 9(2) of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, the Tribunal set aside the revocation order. The decision highlighted the importance of aligning jurisdiction in CHA license revocation cases, clarifying that it did not impact proceedings initiated by the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi. The appeal was allowed, stressing the need for adherence to jurisdictional boundaries in such matters. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 04 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212282