2010 (3) TMI 994 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues involved: Revocation of CHA licence, Violations of CHALR, Transfer/sale of licence, Delay in proceedings, Operative order in case of earlier revocation being set aside.

Revocation of CHA licence:
The appellant, a Customs House Agent (CHA), appealed against the revocation of their licence by the Commissioner. The Commissioner had observed serious violations of CHALR, leading to the revocation. The appellant argued that the revocation was incorrect as the Commissioner had exceeded jurisdiction by making the order operative in case of an earlier revocation being set aside. The appellant also contended that the revocation was harsh, especially since penalties imposed earlier had been set aside by the Tribunal. The appellant challenged the charges brought against them, including the alleged sale or transfer of the licence, lack of authorization, and lack of knowledge regarding certain export details.

Transfer/sale of licence:
The Department reiterated the Commissioner's findings, stating that the appellant had allowed others to use the CHA licence for payments, indicating a transfer or sale of the licence. Statements from individuals involved corroborated this, showing that the appellant's licence was used by others without proper authorization. The Department argued that the appellant's negligence and unauthorized use of the licence had led to revenue loss due to the export of substandard garments under inflated claims.

Delay in proceedings:
While acknowledging a delay of about four years in initiating proceedings, the Tribunal noted that there were other ongoing proceedings against the appellant during that time. Despite the delay, the Tribunal found that the seriousness of the CHALR violations warranted the proceedings, and the delay alone could not invalidate them.

Operative order in case of earlier revocation being set aside:
The Tribunal addressed the appellant's contention that the order making the revocation operative in case of an earlier revocation being set aside was improper. The Tribunal compared it to specifying concurrent or separate sentences in criminal proceedings, noting that if the earlier revocation was found unjustified by an appellate forum, the current order would become irrelevant. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order as justified based on this reasoning.