9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 1187 - AT - CustomsRevocation of CHA licence - revocation on the ground that CHA have failed in their obligation of verifying the identity of his client and their existence in the given address - Held that - No physical verification of importer s premises is mandated in the regulations nor it is a general requirement as per business practice. No violations have been noticed in respect of transactions with Customs with reference to consignment cleared through the appellants - As such the order of revocation of license only on the ground that on later verification the importer was not found in the indicated premises is not justifiable. The time-limits prescribed under Regulation 20 of CBLR 2013 have not been adhered to in this case. As such the impugned order is not sustainable on this ground also. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Revocation of CHA license based on failure to verify client's identity and existence at given address, Delay in revocation process, Compliance with CBLR, 2013 time-limits. Analysis: Revocation of CHA License: The appeal challenged the revocation of the CHA license of the appellant by the Commissioner of Customs (Gen.), New Delhi. The appellant, a licensed Customs House Agent, filed a Bill of Entry on behalf of an importer for clearance of goods. The investigation revealed that the importer was not found at the given address as per IEC, leading to proceedings for revocation of the CHA license. The appellant argued that they followed the prescribed procedure, verified necessary documents, and should not be penalized for violations by other CHAs handling the same importer's consignments. The Tribunal noted that physical verification of the importer's premises was not mandated, and no violations were found in transactions with Customs. Therefore, the revocation based solely on the importer not being found at the indicated premises was deemed unjustifiable. Delay in Revocation Process: The appellant contested the delay between filing the Bill of Entry in 2012 and the revocation of the license in 2015. The Tribunal acknowledged the significant delay but focused on the lack of merit in the revocation order rather than the timeline. It was highlighted that the impugned order lacked justification beyond the failure to verify the importer's existence at the given address. Compliance with CBLR, 2013 Time-Limits: The appellant argued that the time-limits prescribed under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR, 2013) for various stages of proceedings were not followed, rendering the impugned order without jurisdiction. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the time-limits under Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013 were not adhered to in this case. Citing decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the Tribunal, the Tribunal found the impugned order unsustainable on this ground as well. The non-compliance with procedural time-limits further supported the decision to set aside the revocation of the CHA license. In conclusion, the Tribunal found the impugned order of revocation of the CHA license not legally sustainable due to the lack of merit, unjustifiability based on the importer's premises verification, and non-compliance with CBLR, 2013 time-limits. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.
|
