2008 (7) TMI 1012 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the revocation of a Customs House Agent (CHA) license for various violations of regulations under the CHA Licensing Regulations, 2004.

Violation of Regulation 12 - Sale or Transfer of License:
The first charge against the CHA was for contravening Regulation 12 by allegedly subletting its license to another firm, M/s. Panorama Express Agencies, for export purposes. The CHA was accused of overvaluing exports to claim undue duty drawback, leading to the revocation of the license.

Violation of Regulation 13(b) - Business Transactions:
The second charge was for contravention of Regulation 13(b), which requires CHAs to transact business in the Customs Station either personally or through authorized employees. It was alleged that the CHA allowed M/s. Panorama Express Agencies to handle all work for clients, M/s. Frost International and M/s. Aum International, through their manager, without direct involvement.

Violation of Regulation 13(d) - Compliance with Act:
The third charge accused the CHA of not advising its clients to comply with the Act by correctly declaring the FOB value of garments, leading to misdeclaration for fraudulent duty drawback purposes. However, a previous Tribunal order found that the FOB value was correctly declared, resulting in the setting aside of this charge.

Violation of Regulation 13(a) - Authorization Letters:
The fourth charge was for failing to obtain authorization letters from clients and not submitting them to customs authorities, breaching Regulation 13(a) regarding client authorization requirements.

Violation of Regulation 13(k) - Record Maintenance:
The last charge against the CHA was for non-maintenance of records and accounts, violating Regulation 13(k) under the CHA Licensing Regulations, 2004.

Decision:
The Enquiry Officer found most charges proved, leading to the revocation of the CHA license. While the charge under Regulation 13(d) was set aside due to a previous Tribunal order, the other violations were upheld. The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly, deciding that the revocation order would be in operation until 31-8-2008, after which the CHA could resume business operations as a CHA from 1-9-2008 onwards.