9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nhavasheva (Mumbai), the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, ordered suspension of CHA Licence No.11/1134 and the fact was communicated to the Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore, vide letter F.No.SG/Misc-103/2006-CIU JNCH, dated 04.10.2006, for action. Pursuant to which, after adhering to the principles of natural justice, the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Coimbatore, suspended the operation of their CHA Licence No.08/2004, within Coimbatore Customs Formations, for a period of 6 months, with effect from 13.10.2006, vide order, dated 07.11.2006. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent/CHA has filed Appeal No.C/482/2016, on the file of the CESTAT, Chennai. After considering the rival submissions, the CESTAT, Chennai, vide Final Order No.142 of 2007, dated 16.02.2007, at Paragraphs 5 to 8, ordered as hereunder: "5. In the absence of Form-C intimation of Coimbatore-licence, by the appellants, to the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, the rights and obligations of the CHA under that licence did not operate within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. Similarly, in the absence of Form-C intimation of the 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 ..... pension of the licence. We have perused the said orders of the Tribunal (West Zonal Bench) and the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, produced by the advocate. These proceedings relating to the "Mumbai licence" have no bearing on the issue which we have settled in this order. 8. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed." 4. Being aggrieved by the same, M/s.Sri Krishna Logistics, Coimbatore, has filed an Application No.C/ROM/25/07, for rectification. After considering the rival submissions, the CESTAT, Chennai, vide Miscellaneous Order No.402 of 2007, dated 17.05.2007, ordered as hereunder: "....The basic question which arose before us out of the arguments of the two sides was whether the licence issued to the CHA by the Coimbatore Commissioner and the one issued to them by the Mumbai Commissioner were independent licences mutually exclusive in operation. We answered this question in the affirmative after a detailed examination of the facts of the case. We found that both the licences were issued under the relevant provisions of CHALR, 1984 and the same were renewed from time to time. When CHALR, 1984 were in force, we found, a CHA was requi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... examination of the facts of the case. We had even examined the nature of the FORM, which was used by the CHA for obtaining licence from the Mumbai & Coimbatore Commissionerates and also the FORM in which such licences were issued by the two Commissioners. There is no reason, in the present proceedings, to change our decision on the aforesaid question of fact. We repeat that the licences were issued under CHALR, 1984. 4. We have not found any such mistake as pointed out by learned Commissioner, in our final order. The application is dismissed." 5. Aggrieved by the order made in Final Order No.142 of 2007, dated 16.02.2007, instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed, on the following substantial questions of law, "(a) Whether a CHA licence issued under Regulation 10(2) of CHALR, 1984 on the basis of a regular licence issued under Regulation 10(1) is an extension of the parent licence issued under Regulation 10(1) or whether both the licences are mutually exclusive? (b) Whether the Tribunal's decision to the contrary is correct in law when the law provides that Commissioner of Customs is empowered to initiate action under Regulation 20(2) of CHALR, 2004, where an enquiry a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Regulation 10(2). Further, Board vide Circular No.42/04, dated 10/06/2004 has also clarified that licence granted under erstwhile Regulation 10(2) of Custom House Agents Licence Regulations, 1984 would be treated as intimations given and accepted under Regulation 9(2) of CHALR, 2004. Thus, Mumbai-licence, which was issued under Regulation 10(2), had attained the status of an intimation in Form-C prescribed under Regulation 9(2) of CHALR, 2004 and consequently, all the legal obligations under the new Regulations viz, CHALR, 2004 are also applicable to Mumbai licence. Keeping in view the aforesaid aspects of the case, he submitted that the Tribunal has erred in its conclusion that since CHA had not filed any Form-C intimation at Mumbai Customs, the two licences are mutually exclusive in operation. He also reiterated that the order suspending the CHA licence at Coimbatore was right and within the powers conferred on the Commissioner of Coimbatore, under Regulation 20(2) of CHALR, 2004. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. Licence No.11/1134, dated 03.12.99 (Mumbai) has been issued under Regulation 10 of the CHAL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
