Pratima Clearing Agency Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General) - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/943221
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided OnJun-18-2012
Case Number APPEAL NO: C/775/2011 [Arising out of Order-in-Original CAO No: 54/CAC/CC(G)/SLM/ CHA/Admn. Dat
Judge THE HONOURABLE MR. ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) & THE HONOURABLE MR. P.R. CHANDRASEKHARAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
AppellantPratima Clearing Agency
RespondentCommissioner of Customs (General)
Advocates:For the Appellant : Shri Anil Balani, Advocate. For the Respondent : Shri A.K. Prabhakar, Superintendent (AR).
Excerpt:
ashok jindal:  the appellant, which is a cha, has filed this appeal against the impugned order wherein their cha licence no. 11/1310 has been revoked vide order dated 09/08/2011 by the commissioner of customs (general), mumbai. 2. the brief facts of the case are that intelligence was gathered by dri that m/s. samarth corporation and m/s. sdc syndicate are lending their iec code for importation of toiletries by under-valuation done by the importers. as the appellant has dealt with the clearance of the above goods, therefore, their cha licence was suspended vide order dated 08/12/2008. the cha licence was issued by the commissioner of customs, pune. 3. thereafter, proceedings were initiated under regulation 22 of the chalr, 2004 and enquiry officer was appointed. the appellant participated in the enquiry proceedings wherein charges under regulation 13(a), 13(d) and 13(e) were leveled against the appellant. as per the report of the enquiry officer, it was held that charges under regulation 13(a) and 13(d) stand not proved and charges under regulation 13(e) stand proved. thereafter, personal hearing was granted to the appellant. after personal hearing the impugned order has been passed wherein their cha licence has been revoked. 4. heard both the sides. 5. before going into the merits of the case we find that in this case the cha licence has been issued by the commissioner of customs, pune. however, in this case the cha licence has been revoked by the commissioner of customs (general), mumbai, who has no jurisdiction over the cha, the appellant before us. 6. we have gone through the case laws and in the case of n.c. singha vs. union of india 2010 (257) elt 510 (cal.) wherein the hon’ble high court of calcutta has held that the commissioner who has issued the cha licence is only having the jurisdiction to revoke the cha license. in this case, we find that the cha licence has been issued to the appellant by the commissioner of customs, pune and their licence has been revoked by the commissioner of customs (general), mumbai, who has no jurisdiction to revoke the cha licence of the appellant. 7. accordingly, without going into the merits of the case, we set aside the impugned order revoking the cha licence no. 11/1310 with immediate effect. the appeal is allowed in the above manner.
Judgment:

Ashok Jindal:

 The appellant, which is a CHA, has filed this appeal against the impugned order wherein their CHA Licence No. 11/1310 has been revoked vide order dated 09/08/2011 by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai.

2. The brief facts of the case are that intelligence was gathered by DRI that M/s. Samarth Corporation and M/s. SDC Syndicate are lending their IEC code for importation of toiletries by under-valuation done by the importers. As the appellant has dealt with the clearance of the above goods, therefore, their CHA licence was suspended vide order dated 08/12/2008. The CHA licence was issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Pune.

3. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated under Regulation 22 of the CHALR, 2004 and enquiry officer was appointed. The appellant participated in the enquiry proceedings wherein charges under Regulation 13(a), 13(d) and 13(e) were leveled against the appellant. As per the report of the enquiry officer, it was held that charges under Regulation 13(a) and 13(d) stand not proved and charges under Regulation 13(e) stand proved. Thereafter, personal hearing was granted to the appellant. After personal hearing the impugned order has been passed wherein their CHA licence has been revoked.

4. Heard both the sides.

5. Before going into the merits of the case we find that in this case the CHA licence has been issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Pune. However, in this case the CHA licence has been revoked by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai, who has no jurisdiction over the CHA, the appellant before us.

6. We have gone through the case laws and in the case of N.C. Singha vs. Union of India 2010 (257) ELT 510 (Cal.) wherein the hon’ble High Court of Calcutta has held that the Commissioner who has issued the CHA licence is only having the jurisdiction to revoke the CHA license. In this case, we find that the CHA licence has been issued to the appellant by the Commissioner of Customs, Pune and their licence has been revoked by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai, who has no jurisdiction to revoke the CHA licence of the appellant.

7. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case, we set aside the impugned order revoking the CHA licence No. 11/1310 with immediate effect. The appeal is allowed in the above manner.