2015 (5) TMI 997 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA licence - the prohibited items attempted to be exported outside India - It was found that the Shipping Bill No. 5513131, dated 7-11-2008 in the name of Himalayan Tours & Travels, Siliguri. Covering the said consignment was filed by the impugned, CHA. - he ld. Advocate has submitted that the charges labelled against them for the violation of Customs Act, were set aside by the Commissioner (Preventive) and therefore, on the similar facts and circumstances of the case, revocation also is liable to be set aside. Held that - the act provides for two types of action, i.e., (i) for imposition of penalty for aiding and abetting the importer/exporter in smuggling of the goods, (ii) and the other action is contemplated under CHALR. As such merely on the ground that the ld. Commissioner set aside the penalty, is not a ground alone for quashing the order or revocation when the CHA has been found to indulge in gross misconduct and contravening the various provisions of Regulation under CHALR, 2004. - ld. Commissioner has rightly revoked the CHA License and forfeited the security deposit and therefore, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. - Decided against the appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Revocation of CHA License and forfeiture of security deposit.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the revocation of CHA License and forfeiture of the security deposit by the Commissioner of Customs. The case involved the seizure of prohibited items attempted to be exported through a container filed by the CHA. The CHA was found to have violated various provisions of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 (CHALR). The Enquiry Officer's report confirmed the violations, leading to the revocation of the CHA License and forfeiture of the security deposit by the Licencing Authority. The appellant appealed against this decision, claiming that charges related to Customs Act violations were dropped in a separate case. The Tribunal remanded the case for fresh consideration. The Commissioner re-adjudicated the case, confirming the violations and upholding the revocation of the CHA License and forfeiture of the security deposit.

The appellant argued that they were approached by a forwarding agent for clearance purposes and were not aware of the violations. They claimed that they had no knowledge of the prohibited items in the consignment and had acted based on the documents provided by the exporter. The appellant contended that they had not violated the regulations as alleged. On the contrary, the Revenue argued that the violations were established, including failure to transact business through approved employees and lack of necessary supervision.

The Tribunal analyzed the obligations imposed on CHAs under CHALR, 2004, including transacting business personally or through approved employees, advising clients on compliance, and exercising necessary supervision over employees. The Tribunal found that the appellant had failed to comply with these obligations. The Managing Director admitted to using another firm's employees for clearance work, indicating a lack of control and supervision. The Tribunal concluded that the violations were serious enough to warrant the revocation of the CHA License.

Regarding the doctrine of proportionality, the Tribunal cited precedents emphasizing that the punishment should be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct. The Tribunal noted that the revocation was justified based on the established violations and misconduct. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the revocation of the CHA License and forfeiture of the security deposit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the revocation of the CHA License and the forfeiture of the security deposit, finding no merit in the appeal based on the established violations and lack of compliance with regulatory obligations.