2012 (3) TMI 412 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA licence - forfeiture of security deposit - appellant-CHA firm was allegedly involved in the case of misuse of IEC by undervaluing the imported goods and thereby violating provisions of CHALR 2004 - sub-letting the CHA licence to one Shri Manoj Shial for monetary consideration not having proper authorization from the importer - Section 108 of the CA - Held that - it is an admitted position that no proceedings were initiated against the appellant under the CA 1962. Both the statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act have been recorded - there are enough evidence on records that point out that the CHA have not behaved prudently. But for the lapses on the part of the CHA as enumerate in the Inquiry Reports as well as in my observations after weighing defence put forth by the CHA it is seen that no malafide intent has been proved against the CHA. Considering magnitude of infractions on the part of the CHA the CHA should be punished adequately - the licence of CHA was made operative with immediate effect - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Revocation of Customs House Agent (CHA) licence and forfeiture of security deposit for alleged violations of CHALR, 2004 regulations.

Analysis:
The appellant, a Customs House Agent (CHA), appealed against the revocation of his CHA licence and forfeiture of the security deposit due to alleged violations of CHALR, 2004 regulations. The impugned order was based on charges of sub-letting the CHA licence, lack of proper authorization from importers, inadequate advice to clients, and inefficiency. The appellant argued that no show-cause notice was issued, and the allegation of sub-letting was incorrect as the individual in question had his own shipping agency. The appellant cited precedents and alleged discrimination compared to similar cases where suspensions were withdrawn. The respondent contended that investigations and statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act supported the charges, leading to the revocation of the licence. The Tribunal examined the records and noted the absence of proceedings under the Customs Act against the appellant.

In a detailed analysis of a similar case involving Daroowala Bros & Co., the Commissioner's observations highlighted the need for proper valuation of goods by Customs officers, attributing overvaluation issues to exporters rather than CHAs unless proven otherwise. Despite lapses in efficiency, no malafide intent was found. The Commissioner imposed penalties considering the suspension's impact on the business. The Tribunal also reviewed the case of M/s Venkatesh Agencies, where similar allegations were made, and observed inconsistencies in the Commissioner's decisions. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of consistency in judgments and concluded that the revocation of the appellant's licence was not legally sustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the Commissioner to reinstate the appellant's CHA licence immediately. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.