2010 (10) TMI 426 - AT - Customs

Debarring the appellant (CHA) - Regulation 20(c) of the Customs House Agents Licencing Regulations (CHALR for short), 2004 - non-maintenance of register - As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel, the Inquiry Officer s report is also vitiated by the fact that the charges framed by the Commissioner in the aforesaid manner were found to have been proved - The impropriety, if any, in the matter of maintaining register is too insignificant to invoke Regulation 13(k) - The appeal is allowed

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the order debarring the appellant from operating in Mumbai Customs Zone under Regulation 20(c) of the Customs House Agents Licencing Regulations (CHALR), 2004.
- Allegations of non-compliance with Regulations 13(d), (k), and (n) of CHALR, 2004.
- Challenge to the Commissioner's decision based on extraneous considerations.
- Examination of charges and findings against the Custom House Agent (CHA).
- Analysis of the charges and the Inquiry Officer's report.
- Decision on the appeal and stay petition.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai pertains to the order debarring the appellant, a Custom House Agent (CHA), from operating in Mumbai Customs Zone under Regulation 20(c) of the Customs House Agents Licencing Regulations (CHALR), 2004. The appellant, M/s. Rishad Shipping & Cleaning Agency Pvt. Ltd., held a license obtained from the Commissioner of Customs, Indore, authorizing business operations in various Customs Zones, including Mumbai. The impugned order was based on an inquiry report highlighting non-compliance with Regulations 13(k) and (n) of CHALR, 2004, in connection with an import case involving misdeclaration of goods. The Commissioner suspended and later revoked the appellant's license based on the inquiry findings, leading to the appeal challenging the debarring order.

The appellant contested the Commissioner's decision, alleging extraneous considerations and improper application of charges. The appellant argued that the charges were minor technical infractions and did not warrant debarring. The Commissioner's reliance on other ongoing investigations and complaints was also challenged. The appellant emphasized that the charges lacked substantial evidence and that the findings were ambiguous, urging the Tribunal to set aside the order debarring them from operating in Mumbai Customs Zone.

Upon examination, the Tribunal found reasons to interfere with the Commissioner's decision. The charges against the CHA were analyzed concerning Regulations 13(d), (k), and (n) of CHALR, 2004. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the formulation of charges, with overlapping allegations and lack of proper application of mind by the Commissioner. The first charge was dropped, and the second and third charges were assessed regarding the maintenance of records and efficiency in discharging duties. The Tribunal concluded that the allegations under Charges II and III were not substantiated, leading to the decision to discharge the appellant from both charges.

In the final decision, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order debarring the CHA from operating in Mumbai Customs Zone. The appeal was allowed, and the stay petition was disposed of. The Tribunal's detailed analysis of the charges, inquiry findings, and lack of substantial evidence resulted in the favorable outcome for the appellant, emphasizing the importance of proper application of regulations and evidence in such cases.