2003 (10) TMI 604 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Revocation of Custom House Agent (CHA) license under Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 (CHALR, 1984) due to alleged misdeclaration in export consignment; Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the revocation order.

Revocation of CHA License:
The judgment revolves around the revocation of a Custom House Agent (CHA) license under the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 (CHALR, 1984) due to investigations revealing misdeclaration in an export consignment. The investigations conducted by Customs Authorities at Kandla into an export consignment of fancy dupattas revealed discrepancies in the description and quantities declared by the exporter. The power of attorney holder of the CHA firm was found to have misdeclared the export details, leading to the suspension and subsequent revocation of the CHA license. The Commissioner of Customs, after considering the material on record and hearing the appellants, revoked the CHA license under Regulation 21 of CHALR, 1984. The Tribunal found that due procedure was followed before revoking the license, and the issues of knowledge and complicity of the CHA licensee in the misdeclaration would be decided in the final hearing. The Tribunal concluded that no case was made out to stay the revocation order pending the final hearing, as the inherent powers of the Tribunal were not invoked based on the circumstances of the case.

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The applicants sought a stay of the revocation order on the grounds of the violation of principles of natural justice, alleging bias and prejudice in the passing of the order. However, after hearing both sides and considering the arguments presented, the Tribunal found that no case was made out to invoke the inherent powers of the Tribunal to grant a stay. The Tribunal noted that the power of attorney holder had acted in a manner prejudicial to the CHA license, and the revocation was done following the due procedure established by law under CHALR, 1984. The Tribunal emphasized that the issues raised regarding the knowledge and complicity of the CHA licensee in the alleged misdeclaration would be addressed in the final hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the stay application and granted an early hearing date for the appeal, scheduled for January 19, 2004.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai addressed the revocation of a CHA license under CHALR, 1984 due to misdeclaration in an export consignment. The Tribunal found that the revocation was done following the due procedure established by law, and no case was made out to stay the revocation order. The Tribunal also rejected the stay application based on the lack of grounds to invoke the inherent powers of the Tribunal and granted an early hearing date for the appeal.