TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms, Coimbatore, the rights and obligations of the respondent, under that licence would not have any operation, within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore, CESTAT, Chennai has set aside the suspension order, issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore. There is no ground to reverse the findings of the CESTAT, Chennai - petition dismissed. - C. M. A. No. 3401 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 6-12-2017 - S. Manikumar And R. Pongiappan, JJ. For Petitioner : Mr.A.P.Srinivas ORDER ( Order of this Court was made by S. Manikumar, J. ) Challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is to the order made in Final Order No.142 of 2007, dated 16.02.2007, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Shastri Bhavan (Annexe), Chennai 600 006. 2. Shorts facts leading to the appeal are that M/s.Sri Krishna Logistics, Coimbatore, are licensed Customs House Agent (CHA), under Licence No.CHA/CBE/08/2004, issued by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Coimbatore, under Regulation 9 of the CHALR, 2004. The respondent has been transacting business in Mumbai Customs Zone, under CHA Licence No.11/1134, issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai in the absence of Form-C intimation of the Coimbatore-licence to the Mumbai Commissioner. Likewise, the licence issued by the Mumbai Commissioner has had no operation within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore in the absence of Form-C intimation of the Mumbai-Iicence to the Coimbatore Commissioner. The two licences have ever been mutually exclusive in operation. Hence, as rightly submitted by ld. counsel, it was not open to the Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore to suspend the operation of the licence issued by him to the appellants, on any ground relatable to the field of operation of the licence issued to them by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. Therefore, the impugned order, wherein ld. Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore confirmed his suspension order on the sole ground that two employees of the CHA had committed certain offence within the field of operation of the licence issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, cannot be sustained in law. 7. After conclusion of hearing in the case, it was mentioned by the appellants' counsel that the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, suspending lice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner reads as under :- In the Order No.20/2006, dated 09.10.2006 of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, a scanned copy of which has been incorporated in Page 6 of the order of Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore, it is clearly mentioned that the license at Mumbai was granted 'on the basis of holding regular license under Regulation 10(1) of CHALR 1984 [now Regulation 9(1) of CHALR, 2004] at Coimbatore. The Commissioner has read the order of his Mumbai counterpart as meaning that the Mumbai-licence was granted on the basis of the licence at Coimbatore. But, after a closer scrutiny of records, we have found this statement itself to be factually erroneous inasmuch as what was stated by the Mumbai Commissioner was that a permission was granted to the CHA at Mumbai on the basis of the licence held by them at Coimbatore. The further statements contained in the present application are, by and large, in the nature of arguments against our final order. Ld. Commissioner has strenuously endeavoured to construe the provisions of CHALR, 2004. But these arguments and interpretations might be relevant only to an appeal against our order rather than an application of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Regulation 10(2) of erstwhile CHALR, 1984, was considered only, when a CHA held a regular licence under Regulation 10(1), at any other Customs station. In other words, a licence under Regulation 10(2) could be issued only on the basis of an existing Regular licence under Regulation 10(1) which was considered as a parent licence. In this connection, the words permission to transact business at Mumbai Customs Zone used by the Commissioner, Mumbai, in his order, dated 09.10.2006, itself is indicative of the fact that the Mumbai licence was not an independent one. CHALR, 1984 did not contain any provisions to allow anybody to transact the business of CHA on the basis of a mere 'permission' unless the person held a valid licence granted under the Regulations. Considering these legal positions, observation of CESTAT in para 2 of Misc. Order No.402/07, dated 17/05/07, that what was stated by the Mumbai Commissioner was that a permission was granted to the CHA at Mumbai on the basis of the licence held by them at Coimbatore appears to be a totally erroneous finding. He further submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have overlooked the conclusive para of the Mumbai Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hem to transact business as Customs House Agent, all over India, provided there is an intimation in Form-C, as stated supra, to the Commissionerate of the concerned Customs Station. Apparently, the respondent is working as CHA in Customs House, Chennai, on the strength of the licence, issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore. However, no such intimation in Form-C has been given to the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, for transacting business. 10. Upon perusal of the same, CESTAT, Chennai, has stated that there is no intimation in Form-C, from the Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore, to Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, based on the regular licence. Therefore, CHA has been transacting business, based on the regular Licence No.11/1134, dated 03.12.1999, issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. Thus, by observing that in the absence of Form-C intimation from the Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore to Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, rights and obligations of CHA, under the abovesaid licence, renewed upto 26.07.2014, would not operate within the jurisdiction of Mumbai and similarly, in the absence of Form-C intimation of Mumbai-licence to the Commissioner of Customs, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
