TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 643
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lication for renewal of Customs Broker Licence under Regulation 7(1) of the Customs Broker Licence Regulation 2013, (CBLR). 3. In W.P.No.27500 of 2016, the petitioner, who is also a customs broker has challenged the rejection of their application for renewal of licence. 4. Since the factual aspects relating to both the Writ Petitions are identical in nature, and more particularly, in the light of the earlier round of litigation, these Writ Petitions were tagged together, heard and are disposed of by this common order. 5. The licence granted to the petitioners under CBLR were suspended, by orders dated 25.04.2012, under Regulation 20(2) of the erstwhile Customs House Agents Licencing Regulation, 2004 (CHALR). The power granted under Regul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 2014, which were heard by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, and by judgment, dated 27.06.2014, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. Thus, the order of suspension passed on 25.04.2012, continued further by order dated 23.05.2012, were set aside. In the mean time, the petitioners' customs broker licence were due to expire and therefore, the petitioners submitted applications for renewal of licence on 23.12.2014 and 06.08.2014, respectively, since by then CBLR came into force, the applications had to be considered, in terms of the new Regulation. These applications have been rejected by orders dated 01.04.2016 and 08.04.2016, respectively, which are impugned in these Writ Petitions. 7. The dispute in the instant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on raised by the petitioner is totally unacceptable and the order rejecting the application for renewal of licence is proper and justified, as it has been passed after following due procedure of law. 10. As noticed above, the petitioners' licences were placed under suspension with immediate effect by order dated 25.04.2012, and continued by order dated 23.05.2012, after opportunity to the petitioners. These orders were put to challenge before the CESTAT, and the CESTAT, while examining its correctness, was pointed out that the orders of suspension were issued under Regulation 20(2) and 20(3) respectively on the ground that an enquiry is pending or contemplated against the Customs House Agent. After taking into consideration Regulation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Customs shall issue a notice in writing to the Customs House Agent stating the grounds on which it is proposed to suspend or revoke the licence and requiring the said Customs House Agent to submit, within such time as may be specified in the notice, not being less than forty-five days, to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs nominated by him, a written statement of defense and also to specify in the said statement whether the Customs House Agent desires to be heard in person by the said Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs. (2) The Commissioner of Customs may, on receipt of the written statement from the Customs House Agent, or where no such statement has been received ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s than sixty days, any representation that he may wish to make against the findings of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs. (7) The Commissioner of Customs shall, after considering the report of the inquiry and the representation thereon, if any, made by the Customs House Agent, pass such orders as he deems fit. (8) Any Customs House Agent aggrieved by any decision or order passed under regulation 20 or sub-regulation (7) of regulation 22, may prefer an appeal under section 129A of the Act to the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal established under sub-section (1) of section 129 of the Act. 11. The respondents had complied with the procedure under Regulation 22(1) and placed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nducted and the same allegations cannot be put against the petitioner, when their applications for renewal of licence comes up for consideration. The order of suspension having been quashed in its entirety, the respondent cannot state that they will accept the ultimate result of the CESTAT in quashing the suspension order, but would proceed against the petitioner based on the allegations contained in the order of suspension. Such interpretation, if allowed to be accepted, would lead to disastrous consequence and would violate the very rudimentary principles of law. No person can be vexed twice on the same set of facts, which remain unsubstantiated. Therefore, on the allegations set out in the impugned order, the petitioners' application....