Page 175 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

2020 ] COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI v. FREIGHT FIELD (MADRAS) PVT. LTD. 85

“20. Suspension or revocation of licence. - (1) The Commissioner of
Customs may, subject to the provisions of regulation 22, revoke the licence
of a Customs House Agent and order for forfeiture of part or whole of secu-
rity, or only order forfeiture of part or whole of security, on any of the fol-
lowing grounds, namely :-
(a) failure of the Customs House Agent to comply with any of the condi-
tions of the bond executed by him under regulation 10;
(b) failure of the Customs House Agent to comply with any of the provi-
sions of these regulations, within the jurisdiction of the said Commis-
sioner of Customs or anywhere else;
(c) any misconduct on his part, whether within the jurisdiction of the said
Commissioner of Customs or anywhere else which in the opinion of
the Commissioner renders him unfit to transact any business in the
Customs Station.”
13. Therefore the Commissioner of Customs, on proven charges against
the licensee, either can revoke the license of the Customs House Agent as well as
forfeiting whole or part of the security deposit or only order for forfeiture of part
or whole of security deposit. Though such a discretion was given to the Commis-
sioner of Customs, in a case where the Customs Broker Licensee violated several
obligations on the part of the Customs House Agent, as has been contemplated
under Regulation 13, whether a mere forfeiture of deposit of a sum of Rs.
25,000/- alone can be inflicted as punishment or the license itself should be re-
voked is a question to be decided depending upon the facts and circumstances of
that particular case. Therefore whatever order culminated pursuant to the adju-
dication proceedings made by the Commissioner of Customs under the CHALR,
such order, whether can be testified before the Appellate Authority, namely the
CESTAT under Section 129A of the Customs Act or not is the question here.
14. In this context, Mr. S. Murugappan, Learned Counsel appearing for
the respondent/licensee has heavily relied upon sub-regulation (8) of Regulation
22, which reads thus :
“(8) Any Customs House Agent aggrieved by any decision or order
passed under regulation 20 or sub-regulation (7) of regulation 22, may pre-
fer an appeal under section 129A of the Act to the Customs, Central Excise
and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal established under sub-section (1) of sec-
tion 129 of the Act.”
15. By relying upon the sub-regulation (8) of Regulation 22, Mr. S.
Murugappan, Learned Counsel would vehemently contend that, only the ag-
grieved Customs House Agent, by any decision or order passed under Regula-
tion 20 or sub-regulation (7) of Regulation 22, can prefer an appeal under Section
129A of the Customs Act, thereby the Revenue is totally prohibited from filing
any appeal against whatever order passed by the Customs authorities either un-
der Regulation 20 or under Regulation 22(7).
16. The Learned Counsel also would urge that, any order passed by the
Customs authorities who exercise the power under various regulations of
CHALR shall only be construed as an administrative order, therefore as against
which, no appeal would lie before the CESTAT under Section 129A of the Cus-
toms Act.
17. In support of his contention, the Learned Counsel would rely upon
a Coordinate Bench decision of this Court in the matter of Commissioner of Cus-
toms, Exercise v. Aren Shipping Agents (P) Ltd., reported in MANU/TN/3219/

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  175