2007 (5) TMI 466 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Cancellation of Custom House Agent license based on violation of Regulation 14(a), 14(d), and 14(1) of Custom House Agent Licensing Regulations, 1984.

Regulation 14(a) - Authorization Requirement:
The appellant's license was cancelled for failing to obtain authorization from each company as required u/s Regulation 14(a). The appellant argued that a letter of authorization from M/s. Metropolitan Group of Companies was obtained, and importers themselves signed many shipping bills, implying authorization. The appellant also relied on statements supporting their actions.

Regulation 14(d) - Compliance with Act:
Regarding the charge based on Regulation 14(d), the appellant argued that there was no requirement to append purchase orders while preparing documents. They cited legal judgments to support their position.

Regulation 14(1) - Document Compliance:
For charge No. III related to Regulation 14(1), the appellant argued that since no specific orders existed, there was no question of non-compliance. Legal precedents were cited to emphasize compliance with specified rules.

Judicial Precedents and Arguments:
Legal arguments included references to judgments highlighting the responsibilities of Custom House Agents and the obligations of Customs Officers in document verification. The appellant's counsel emphasized lack of conclusive proof of knowledge about cargo diversion.

Decision and Rationale:
After reviewing the record, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the show cause notice and concluded that the appellant did not violate Regulation 14(a) as authorization from the Indian Navy was not required. The Tribunal dismissed charges I and III but upheld charge II for non-compliance with Regulation 14(d). Despite acknowledging the lapse, the Tribunal considered the appellant's past suspension and set aside the license cancellation, opting for a lenient view.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal disposed of the appeal by setting aside the order of license cancellation, considering the circumstances and the appellant's past difficulties in conducting business.