2009 (2) TMI 548 - AT - Customs

Customs House Agent s licence - Revocation of - Strictures against Department - Held that - The allegation and findings of aiding and abetting to the exporter were made a part of the show cause notice issued on 25-7-06 which does not stand adjudicated by the Commissioner even till date. As such it cannot be said at this stage that the allegation made in such show cause notice have attained finality. By appreciating the fact that the said CHA is out of business for last three years we are of the view that the appellant has already suffered a lot - matter on remand.

Summary

Issues: Revocation of CHA licence

Analysis:
The issue in this case revolved around the revocation of a Customs House Agent (CHA) licence. Initially, the Tribunal had decided that the revocation of the CHA licence would be operative only up to a certain date based on the punishment already undergone by the CHA. The Tribunal considered various precedents and held that the punishment should be commensurate with the offense. The Tribunal's decision was then appealed by the Revenue before the High Court, arguing that the Tribunal's observation regarding the non-adjudication of a show cause notice was incorrect. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication, emphasizing that the show cause notice had already been adjudicated. However, it was later admitted that the show cause notice had not been adjudicated till date. Despite this admission, the Revenue did not approach the High Court for clarification or modification of the order. The Tribunal expressed displeasure at the Revenue's attitude and proceeded with the disposal of the appeal.

Upon reviewing the High Court's order, the Tribunal found that the earlier decision was set aside solely on the ground of incorrect observation regarding the adjudication of the show cause notice. The Tribunal noted that the CHA had been out of business for around three years and that the allegations against them had not attained finality as the show cause notice had not been adjudicated. Considering the precedent decisions and the fact that the CHA had already suffered significantly, the Tribunal set aside the revocation order of the CHA licence, to be implemented with immediate effect.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the adequacy of the punishment already undergone by the CHA, the incorrect observation regarding the adjudication of the show cause notice, and the CHA's significant period without business. The Tribunal ultimately set aside the revocation order of the CHA licence based on these considerations.