2006 (10) TMI 314 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Revocation of license of CHA under Regulation 22(c) of Custom House Agent's Licensing Regulations (CHALR), 2004.
2. Allegation of operating license through unauthorized persons and not handling customs documents directly.
3. Compliance with Regulation 13(a) of CHALR, 2004.

Analysis:
1. The Commissioner of Customs revoked the license of the appellants, a CHA, under Regulation 22(c) of CHALR, 2004, based on allegations of operating the license through unauthorized persons and not handling customs documents directly. The Tribunal remanded the matter for de novo consideration regarding these allegations. The appellant denied allowing unauthorized persons to handle baggage and argued that their canvassing agent was not authorized to appear before customs authorities. The Commissioner's decision was based on conjecture without concrete evidence, leading to the revocation of the license.

2. The appellant contended that there was no evidence supporting the allegations against them. The Commissioner's decision was criticized for being based on assumptions and presumptions, lacking statements from relevant individuals like P. A. Gigesh and V. A. Mary Das. The appellant had been in business for 22 years without any prior charges, making the revocation seemingly unjustified. The JDR argued that allowing unauthorized persons to handle packages could warrant license suspension, citing a Chennai Bench judgment.

3. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found the Commissioner's decision to be unfounded, relying on conjecture and assumptions. No concrete evidence or admissions were presented to prove that unauthorized individuals handled the packages. The absence of categorical evidence led to the conclusion that the revocation of the license was not legally sustainable. A comparison was drawn to a previous case where evidence of unauthorized handling existed, in contrast to the lack of evidence in the present case. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, emphasizing the necessity of concrete evidence in such matters.

This judgment highlights the importance of concrete evidence in legal proceedings and the requirement for decisions to be based on factual findings rather than conjecture or assumptions. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the revocation of the license underscores the significance of upholding legal standards and procedural fairness in administrative actions.