2008 (7) TMI 752 - AT - Customs

Revocation of Customs House Agent s Licence - Held that - Where the inquiry report is not to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, Regulation 23 makes no provision for dismissal thereof. In fact, the wording of sub-regulation (6) is that it is mandatory for the Commissioner to furnish the inquiry officer s report to the CHA, irrespective of whether the enquiry findings are against the CHA or are in his favour - revocation of the CHA licence cannot be sustained - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Revocation of CHA license based on alleged involvement in filing bills with bogus licenses.

Analysis:
The case involved the revocation of a Customs House Agent (CHA) license due to alleged involvement in filing bills of entry with bogus special import licenses. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence identified four live bills of entry filed by the appellants on behalf of certain entities involving the use of bogus licenses. The appellants' employee was accused of procuring these licenses. The Tribunal had earlier set aside the suspension of the license and remanded the case for fresh decision. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued, and the Inquiry Officer exonerated the appellants from all charges. However, years later, the Commissioner disagreed with the report and revoked the CHA license, leading to the appeal.

The Inquiry Officer had detailed findings exonerating the appellants from the charges. The Commissioner relied on statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, which the Tribunal held could not be used as evidence against the CHA under the Licensing Regulations. The disagreement memo issued by the Commissioner was deemed contrary to established law, as per precedents like Narendra Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai. The Commissioner's actions were found to be in violation of Regulation 23, which outlines the procedure for suspending or revoking a CHA license.

Regulation 21 empowers the Commissioner to suspend or revoke a CHA license following the procedure in Regulation 23. The wording of Regulation 23 allows for appeals against orders passed under it. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner's decision-making process must adhere to the regulations, and the revocation of the CHA license was set aside based on these legal grounds.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the revocation of the CHA license. The decision highlighted the importance of following due process and legal provisions in matters concerning the suspension or revocation of licenses, emphasizing the need for adherence to established regulations and precedents.