2008 (4) TMI 557 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Suspension and revocation of CHA license based on alleged involvement in mis-declaration of goods.

Analysis:
The case involved the suspension and subsequent revocation of a Customs House Agent (CHA) license due to alleged involvement in the mis-declaration of goods. Initially, the Commissioner of Customs suspended the CHA license based on the grounds that the Power of Attorney holder of the CHA had knowledge of the concealment of ball bearings in consignments but did not inform the customs authorities. However, the Tribunal set aside this order as the CHA was not a party to the show cause notice regarding the mis-declaration. The Tribunal directed the department to complete the proceedings under the CHA Licensing Regulation. The Revenue appealed to the Bombay High Court, which dismissed the appeal and revoked the suspension of the CHA. Subsequently, an inquiry was conducted, and the Commissioner revoked the CHA license, stating that the Power of Attorney holder was actively involved in smuggling ball bearings and the CHA partner failed to supervise properly.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted that the Power of Attorney holder had been exonerated by the Settlement Commission, which found no conscious knowledge of mis-declaration attributed to him. Despite this exoneration, the Commissioner proceeded to revoke the CHA license based on the involvement of the Power of Attorney holder in mis-declaration. The Tribunal held that since the Settlement Commission had granted immunity to the Power of Attorney holder and found no conscious knowledge of mis-declaration, the Commissioner should not have revoked the CHA license. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the revocation was unwarranted in light of the Settlement Commission's findings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of considering exoneration by relevant authorities and ensuring that actions taken against license holders are based on concrete evidence and legal grounds. The case serves as a reminder of the need for thorough assessments before revoking licenses based on allegations of misconduct.