2010 (8) TMI 566 - AT - Customs

Suspension of CHA licences - Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. dt. 14-9-07 - The refund claims filed by assessee are required to be verified by the proper officer who has to sanction the same - how the present CHA can be said to have aided and abetted the importers for grant of refund by merely filing the same before Assistant Commissioner who is proper officer to examine the claim and to sanction or reject the same - The claims having been actually sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner the appellant s act of helping another CHA in filing claim cannot be held to be mala fide or violative of any provisions of the rules - Even if that be so the adjudicating authority having passed the refund claim the CHA cannot be attributed with any contravention by merely filing the refund claim so as to invite suspension of his licence Regarding certain department files were recovered from the official premises of the said CHA - Once the appellant takes a plea of there being a practice in Customs House of supplying the files to CHA for various purposes of completion or typing etc. the Commissioner was duty bound to verify the above fact and record the finding thereto - There is nothing in the impugned order of Commissioner to the effect that such files were procured by the present CHA without consent of the officer - The appellants have also argued that they are one of the leading CHA and there was no irregularity or illegality or lapse committed by them at any point of time in the present case also no detailed enquiry has been made - Decided in the favour of the assessee

Summary

Issues:
Suspension of CHA licenses based on aiding and abetting in filing refund claims and recovery of department files from CHA premises.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Aiding and abetting in filing refund claims
The judgment revolves around the suspension of CHA licenses due to allegations of aiding and abetting in filing refund claims by the appellant's employee for importers who were not their clients. The Commissioner suspended the licenses based on the belief that the appellant's actions were deliberate and conscious. However, the Tribunal found that merely assisting another CHA in preparing and filing refund claims, which were later sanctioned by the proper officer, did not amount to a violation of CHALR provisions. The Tribunal emphasized that the claims were verified and sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner, and there was no evidence of mala fide intentions or contraventions by the appellant.

Issue 2: Recovery of department files from CHA premises
Another ground for suspension was the recovery of department files from the CHA premises, suggesting potential misconduct. The appellant argued that it was a common practice for Custom officers to provide files to CHAs for various tasks. The Tribunal noted that while recovery of official files was a serious matter, there was no evidence to suggest wrongdoing on the part of the CHA. The Commissioner failed to verify the appellant's claim of routine file sharing and did not investigate how the files reached the CHA's office with the officers' consent. As per Regulation 13(h), if files were provided by the proper officer, it did not constitute a violation. The Tribunal found that the lack of evidence and verification meant this ground could not justify license suspension.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the suspension orders, ruling that there were no justifiable reasons to uphold them. It highlighted the lack of evidence supporting the allegations and emphasized that the appellant had not committed any grave misconduct warranting license suspension. The judgment underscored the importance of thorough investigations and adherence to legal procedures before taking punitive actions against CHAs.