2017 (11) TMI 553

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ms. Certain proceedings were initiated against the respondent for violating the provisions of Customs House Agent Licensing Regulation (CHALR), 2004. The case was adjudicated resulting in the impugned order. The Original Authority held that the security deposit of Rs. 50,000/- provided by the respondent before the Licensing Authority shall stand forfeited for violations of the provisions by the respondent. 2. The Original Authority did not order revocation of license which was proposed in the show cause notice dated 06/01/2012. Revenue is aggrieved by this order and filed this appeal. The learned AR elaborating the grounds of appeal submitted that the respondent were involved in activities which are in clear violation of CHALR, 2004 and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ell as High Court in various decisions reported : CC (General), Mumbai Vs. JAC Enterprises - 2016 (334) E.L.T. 89 (Tri. - Mumbai), CC, Mumbai Vs. Impex Clearing & Shipping Agency - 2003 (161) E.L.T. 483 (Tri. - Mumbai) and A.S. Vasan & Sons Vs. Union of India - 2009 (238) E.L.T. 217 (Bom.), held that the CHALR, 2004 being a self-contained code specifically provided for appeal by the CHA when aggrieved by the order of the Licensing Authority. Admittedly, it did not provide for an appellate remedy to the Revenue. The submission of the learned AR is that this order have been issued by the Adjudicating Authority in terms of CHALR, 2004 which is framed under Customs Act, 1962. Hence, the same should be appealable in terms of Section 129A. He ref....