2009 (7) TMI 1108 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
The cancellation of Customs House Agent (CHA) licence due to violation of regulations under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984.

The High Court of Bombay upheld the cancellation of the appellant's CHA licence by the Commissioner of Customs (General) after an enquiry revealed that the appellant allowed unauthorized persons to use their licence for a monthly monetary consideration. The enquiry found that the appellant did not have sufficient supervision over the business conducted under the CHA licence, leading to the violation of regulations. The Tribunal also affirmed the findings of the enquiry officer, concluding that the appellant breached the regulations under which the licence was issued. Despite extensive arguments, the appellant's counsel failed to identify any legal questions or demonstrate that the lower authorities' findings were unreasonable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The record disclosed that the appellant facilitated the evasion of customs duty by allowing entities like M/s. Aditya Shipping Agency, M/s. Sachai Ma Clearing Agency, and M/s. Balaji Clearing Agency to utilize their CHA licence in exchange for a monthly payment. Statements from individuals associated with these entities confirmed that they were not employees of the appellant but were using the appellant's CHA licence without authorization. The partners of the appellant admitted to providing pre-signed shipping bills to these entities, further substantiating the unauthorized use of the CHA licence. The enquiry officer and the Tribunal both found that the appellant failed to comply with the regulations governing CHA licences, leading to the cancellation of the licence.

The appellant's CHA licence was revoked following an enquiry that uncovered the unauthorized use of the licence by third parties in exchange for monetary consideration. The appellant was found to have allowed entities without their own CHA licence to operate under the appellant's licence, thereby violating the regulations. The partners of the appellant firm acknowledged providing blank pre-signed shipping bills to these entities, confirming the unauthorized use of the CHA licence. The authorities concluded that the appellant did not exercise adequate supervision over the business conducted under the CHA licence, leading to the cancellation of the licence. The appeal challenging the cancellation was dismissed by the Tribunal, and the High Court affirmed the decision, finding no legal errors in the lower authorities' conclusions.