Case Law Details
Asia Shipping Services Vs C.C.-Kandla (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
The recent case of Asia Shipping Services vs. C.C.-Kandla heard by the CESTAT Ahmedabad raised significant questions regarding the imposition of penalties for holding two Customs House Agent (CHA) licenses. The tribunal’s decision sheds light on procedural lapses and the responsibility of authorities. This article delves into the details of the case and the tribunal’s ruling.
Asia Shipping Services and Shri Harendra M Karia appealed against the penalty of Rs. 50,000 imposed by Revenue for holding two CHA licenses. It was highlighted that Shri Harendra M Karia, qualified under CHALR 1984, was initially associated with Asia Shipping Services. However, attempts to substitute his name with Shri Anil Karia’s in Asia Shipping’s license were unsuccessful.
Despite procedural efforts, Shri Harendra M Karia applied for an independent CHA license in his individual capacity and was granted one. The tribunal acknowledged the procedural lapse but emphasized that it was not the appellants’ fault. Revenue’s failure to process the substitution request effectively led to the situation.
The tribunal, citing Regulation 19 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018, established that Revenue lacked the authority to appeal against the Commissioner’s decision. Therefore, the appeals filed by Revenue were dismissed as not maintainable.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
