2005 (12) TMI 337 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against cancellation of CHA license and forfeiture of security amount.
Issue of assisting export firm in obtaining excess drawback.
Validity of cancellation based on allowing preparation of two sets of invoices.
Penalty for aiding and abetting without establishment of main charge.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal against the cancellation of a Customs House Agent (CHA) license and the forfeiture of a security amount. The Commissioner of Customs had cancelled the CHA license and ordered the forfeiture of the security amount on the grounds that the CHA allowed the preparation of two sets of invoices while clearing export consignments, which contravened the provisions of Regulation 14(d) of the CHALR, 1984, and failed to maintain a job register for the export consignments cleared.

The central issue revolved around whether the appellant assisted the export firm in obtaining excess inadmissible drawback by over-invoicing shipping bills. The appellant argued that despite the events occurring between 1997 and 2000, no show cause notice was issued to either the export firm for recovery of excess drawback or to the CHA for penalty under the Customs Act. The department failed to establish that the export firm availed of any excess drawback, thus challenging the basis for the cancellation of the CHA license.

During the hearing, the Senior Departmental Representative (SDR) contended that the act of allowing the preparation of two sets of invoices justified the cancellation of the CHA license. However, the tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument that without establishing the main charge against the export firm, any penalty for aiding and abetting could not be sustained. As the department did not prove the charge against the export firm, the cancellation of the CHA license was deemed unjustified.

Ultimately, the tribunal held that since the primary event of the export firm availing excess drawback was not proven, the cancellation of the CHA license could not be upheld. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal against the cancellation was allowed.