Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2014 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 671 - HC - CustomsSuspension of CHA licence - procedure - acts of violation and misconduct - Regulation 20(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 - Held that:- The initial order of suspension under Regulation 20(2) and final order under Regulation 20(3) to continue the order of suspension are to be followed by an enquiry under Section 22 and admittedly, it has not been done so within the time limit prescribed. The orders of suspension passed against the second respondent in these appeals cannot continue and the concerned authority, namely the appellant herein has to take a decision whether to suspend or revoke the licence in terms of Regulation 22 and if he fails to do so, the only result is to set aside the impugned orders of initial suspension and its continuance and in the considered opinion of the Court, the Tribunal has rightly done that exercise by correct appreciation of facts and application of Regulations 20 and 22 of CHALR, 2004. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision in Ranadey Micronutrients v. Collector of Central Excise [1996 (9) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has held that the Board circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs is binding on the Revenue and they cannot be challenged on the ground of inconsistency with any statutory provisions. In the light of the legal position, it is not open to the appellant/Revenue to take a contra stand in respect of the time limit prescribed under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004. The compliance of procedure under Regulation 20 would not tantamount the compliance of Regulation under 22 and therefore, the substantial questions of law raised in these appeals are answered in negative against the appellant in these appeals. - Decided against the revenue.
|