2017 (7) TMI 1105 - HC - Customs

Revocation of CHA License - time limitation - scope of SCN - Principles of Natural Justice - Held that - Delay of four years, between the date of suspension, ie., on 15.02.2006, and the date of revocation order, ie., on 13.05.2010, lead to filing of an appeal before the CESTAT, Chennai and that the same has been disposed of on 13.06.2016, after 6 years - the order of revocation has resulted in loss of business for more than 10 years. It is abundantly clear that the said authority had traveled beyond the contents of the show cause notice and considered materials behind the back of the respondent, in determining the guilt of the petitioner, to pass an order of revocation, which is a violation of principles of natural justice. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in concluding proceedings against the respondent.
2. Allegation of violation of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004.
3. Revocation of the respondent's license.
4. Violation of principles of natural justice.
5. Proportionality of punishment imposed.

Analysis:

1. Delay in Concluding Proceedings:
The respondent raised concerns about the substantial delay in concluding the proceedings from the date of suspension to the date of the revocation order. The Tribunal noted a delay of four years in issuing the revocation order and another six years at the appellate stage, leading to a total delay of over ten years. This delay was considered significant in the decision-making process.

2. Violation of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations:
The respondent was alleged to have violated the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, by failing to obtain proper authorization from clients and exercise due diligence in handling customs-related work. The Tribunal found that the original authority had relied on certain details not mentioned in the show-cause notice, which raised concerns about procedural fairness.

3. Revocation of License:
The Commissioner of Customs had revoked the respondent's license and forfeited the security deposit based on the findings of investigations and adjudication proceedings. The Tribunal found that the revocation order went beyond the contents of the show-cause notice and considered materials not disclosed to the respondent, violating principles of natural justice.

4. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The Tribunal determined that the revocation order was based on information not shared with the respondent, leading to a violation of principles of natural justice. The reliance on undisclosed materials and the failure to adhere to procedural fairness were key factors in setting aside the original revocation order.

5. Proportionality of Punishment Imposed:
The Tribunal considered the proportionality of the punishment imposed on the respondent in light of a previous judgment from the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The judgment emphasized the importance of balancing the gravity of the infraction with mitigating circumstances and the necessity for proportionate punishment under the law.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, upholding the decision of the Tribunal to set aside the revocation of the respondent's license. The judgment highlighted the importance of procedural fairness, the impact of delays in legal proceedings, and the need for proportionate punishment in cases involving regulatory violations.