TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 605
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Regulation 20 (1) of Customs House Agents Licencing Regulations, 2004 (CHALR, 2004), the appellant's CHA licence was revoked and forfeiture of security deposit of Rs. 50,000/- was ordered. Challenge in the appeal is inter alia on the ground that the impugned order is invalid since the proceedings were initiated by an authority who had no jurisdiction to suspend or revoke appellant's licence under the provisions of CHALR, 2004. Contentions were also advanced on merits. Since the appeal succeeds on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, it is not necessary to analyse challenge of the impugned order on merits of the decision. 2. Ld. counsel for the appellant has presented a list of dates, on which there is no contest by the respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 22(1) not only requires the jurisdictional Commissioner (the respondent) to issue a notice proposing revocation or suspension of the licence, but also to set out the grounds on which the revocation of licence is proposed (in such notice) and should further intimate to the CHA, the factum of having nominated a specified Dy. Commissioner or Asst. Commissioner of Customs to whom a written statement of defence should be submitted by the CHA. The appellant further contends that the enquiry officer whose report dated 20.09.2012 was the basis for the impugned order, was not nominated by the respondent. He was appointed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. This is a patent and fatal infirmity which vitiates the whole proceedings, including the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner and not by the respondent; that the Delhi Commissioner had merely issued the Notice dated 07.11.2012 on the basis of the enquiry report dated 20.09.2012 drawn up by the Dy. Commissioner, SUB, Mumbai; and that this Notice was based on no enquiry conducted by any officer appointed by the respondent. 6. Regulation 20 of the 2004 Regulations authorises the Commissioner of Customs, subject to provisions of Regulation 22 to revoke the licence of a CHA and order for forfeiture of a part or whole of the security, on any of the grounds specified therein. Regulation 22 sets out the procedure to be followed for suspension or revocation of licence. Clause (1) of the Regulation requires the Commissioner of Customs to issue a notice in writing t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... authority. Clause (7) provides that the Commissioner of Customs, after considering the report of the enquiry officer and the representation thereon, if any, made by the licencee shall pass such order as appropriate in the circumstances. 7. The 2004 Regulations are made by the CBEC in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 146 of the Customs Act, 1962. Regulation 3 sets out that no person shall carry on business as a CHA relating to entry or departure of a conveyance or the import or export of goods at any Customs Station unless such persons holds a licence granted under the Regulations. Regulation 4 sets out the process for an application for grant of CHA licence and provides that the Commissioner of Customs shall in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner of Customs, in so far as the operations pertain within his jurisdiction. Regulation 22 sets out the procedure for exercising the power of suspension or revocation of a licence, authorised under Regulation 20. 8. From the text of the provisions of the 2004 Regulations, it is clear that only the jurisdictional Commissioner which had issued the CHA licence is authorised to suspend or revoke the licence and order forfeiture of security deposit under Regulation 20. The authority which may exercise the power of suspension or revocation of licence and by following the procedure mandated under Regulation 22 is the same authority. No other inference is legitimate since the process mandated under Regulation 22 is for due exercise of the powe....