2016 (12) TMI 831

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ould submit that the question of law formulated in para 4 at page 62 of the memo of appeal is a substantial question of law. 3. He would submit that the tribunal should have found and from the record that this is a very serious case where the charge is of transfer of licence unauthorisedly. That is contrary to Regulation 12. The conclusion in the order passed by the Commissioner is relied upon to submit that the said Regulation is violated. The respondent has not denied that it has allowed one Mr. Manish Sangani to use its licence. He was not an employee of the firm holding the licence. In such circumstances that the violation was proved. 4. The Regulation 13(a) making it mandatory for the Custom House Agent (CHA) to obtain proper aut....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sfer of licence. The tribunal, though concluded that even the handing over of the licence and allowing its usage would amount to transfer for the purpose of Regulation 12, what has been then concluded is that the other violation, as held to be proved, has not been committed. There is an authorisation though belatedly produced. Secondly, though Regulation 13(a) is held to be not adhered to, that is not something which has weighed with the tribunal. Mr. Kantawala submits that though the findings of the Commissioner on other charges are also held to be sustainable, still, what the tribunal has held is that the CHA cannot be disabled permanently for the violation as that would deprive him and his employees of their source of livelihood. The lic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... had their temporary passes renewed in their name after the suspension. This was a case where the CHA licence was used by Manish Sangani and this is a case of violation of Regulation 12. That is how the Commissioner of Customs (General) proceeded against the respondent and passed order on 30th July, 2012. 8. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with that order, the tribunal was approached by the said respondent/CHA holder. 9. The tribunal entertained his appeal of the year 2013 and decided it on 21st April, 2015. Thus, from 29th March, 2012 till the tribunal's order dated 21st April, 2015 was communicated and even today, this CHA licence is non-operative. 10. We have found from a perusal of the tribunal's order and the findings there....