GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
What's New Case Laws Highlights Articles News Forum Short Notes Statutory TMI SMS More ...
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (10) TMI 643 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2016 (10) TMI 643 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - 2017 (346) E.L.T. 177 (Mad.) - Renewal of Customs Broker Licence under Regulation 7(1) of the Customs Broker Licence Regulation 2013 - the order of suspension and continuation of suspension were set aside by the Tribunal, and affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench and for the same set of reasons, the petitioners' applications for renewal of customs broker licence was rejected - whether the petitioners can be penalised twice for the same reason? - Held that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g the licence continuous to remain as an allegation and has not been substantiated by the Department by conducting an enquiry as required to be done under the Regulations by following the procedure contemplated under Regulation 22(2) to 22(7). The CESTAT, rightly set aside the order of suspension and such orders were confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, it would be wholly untenable on the part of the respondent to state that they will once again rely on the unsubstan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

so, should strictly adhere to the procedure under CBLR. - Petition allowed - matter remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration with a direction to consider the petitioners' applications for renewal of customs broker licence - decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P.Nos.27499 & 27500 of 2016 - Dated:- 5-10-2016 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Murugappan For the Respondents : Mr.Raj Kumar Jhabakh ORDER Heard Mr.S.Murugappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 Regulati .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s put to challenge by the petitioners in W.P.Nos.15002 & 15001 of 2012 respectively, and those Writ Petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 02.07.2012, along with two other connected matters with a direction to the respondent to follow the procedure contemplated under Regulation 22(2) of the CHALR, and till the matters are disposed of as per Regulation 22(7) of the CHALR, the order of suspension was directed to be kept in abeyance. 6. The respondent filed Writ Appeals as against t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vil Miscellaneous Appeals in CMA.Nos.1423 & 1424 of 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n Bench and for the same set of reasons, the petitioners' applications for renewal of customs broker licence cannot be rejected. In other words, the petitioners cannot be penalised twice for the same reason. 8. The case of the Revenue as projected by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, and as seen from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, is that the proceedings pertaining to the suspension of licence can have no bearing, as the order of suspension was set as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he impugned order, reasons have been assigned and when the order of suspension of licence was challenged, the CESTAT did not give any findings as regards the reasons for suspension. That apart, the renewal of licence was never questioned before CESTAT, or before this Court and therefore, the contention 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. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Agent. After taking into consideration Regulation 22, which prescribes the procedure to be followed in such cases, the CESTAT pointed out that the Commissioner of Customs upon receipt of the reply to the notice issued under Regulation 22(1), would direct the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs to enquire and despite a direction of this Court in its order dated 02.07.2012, to follow the procedure under Regulation 22(2), no notice was issued to the petitioner till t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nsion cannot be sustained. On a perusal of the impugned orders in these Writ Petitions, it is seen that there are six allegations made against the petitioners alleging violation of Regulation 11(a),(b),(d),(e) and 17(6), 16 of the CBLR, what is interesting to note is that these were the very same allegations based on which the order of suspension was passed on 25.04.2012. In terms of Regulation 22, the procedure for suspension or revocation of licence under Regulation 20 has been stipulated and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ment 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 within the time-limit specified in the notice referred to in sub-regulation (1), direct the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs to inquire into the grounds which are not ad .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ent shall be entitled to cross-examine the persons examined in support of the grounds forming the basis of the proceedings, and where the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs declines to examine any person on the grounds that his evidence is not relevant or material, he shall record his reasons in writing for so doing. (5) At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs shall prepare a report of the inquiry .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ring 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 un .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n and has not been substantiated by the Department by conducting an enquiry as required to be done under the Regulations by following the procedure contemplated under Regulation 22(2) to 22(7). 12. In such circumstances, the CESTAT, rightly set aside the order of suspension and such orders were confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, it would be wholly untenable on the part of the respondent to state that they will once again rely on the unsubstantiated allegations .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Latest Notifications:

    Dated      Category

20-7-2017 Cus (NT)

20-7-2017 GST CESS Rate

19-7-2017 IT

19-7-2017 IT

18-7-2017 IT

18-7-2017 CE (NT)

18-7-2017 CE

18-7-2017 GST CESS Rate

15-7-2017 Kerala SGST

14-7-2017 Andhra Pradesh SGST

14-7-2017 Cus (NT)

14-7-2017 Cus

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 ADD

13-7-2017 ADD

12-7-2017 Jammu & Kashmir SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 CGST Rate

More Notifications


Latest Circulars:

19-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

19-7-2017 Income Tax

18-7-2017 Customs

17-7-2017 Customs

14-7-2017 Income Tax

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

7-7-2017 Income Tax

More Circulars



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version