9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (6) TMI 466 - AT - CustomsRevocation of CHA licence - alleged violation of Regulations 13(d), 13(n) and 19(8) of the CHALR, 2004 - non- verification of contents of export - Held that - It is found that findings of the Commissioner of Customs in the case of Daroowala Bros and Co., wherein it was held that CHA has performed their job in a casual manner and CHA licence was made operative by forfeiting the security deposit, and in the appellant s case are almost identical. However, in both the cases treatments given are different. The Commissioner of Customs (General) should maintain consistency in passing the orders/decisions and should not follow the policy of pick and choose. In this case, Commissioner of Customs (General) has followed the policy of pick and choose and there is no consistency in decision while dealing the same situation, thereby he revoked the CHA licence of the appellant which cannot be permitted. We do not find any merit in the impugned order, the same is set aside.
Issues:
Revocation of CHA license based on alleged violations of Regulations 13(d), 13(n), and 19(8) of CHALR, 2004. Allegation of fraudulent availing of drawback by companies with fictitious IECs. Failure to verify genuineness of exporters by the Customs House Agent (CHA). Discrepancy in treatment of similar cases by the Commissioner of Customs (General). Analysis: 1. Revocation of CHA License: The appeal was filed against the revocation of the CHA license of M/s Baraskar Brothers based on allegations of violations of Regulations 13(d), 13(n), and 19(8) of CHALR, 2004. The inquiry found the charges under Regulations 13(d) and 13(n) to be proved but not under Regulation 19(8). The appellant was accused of not advising the client to comply with the Act, failing to bring matters to the notice of customs officials, and not ensuring proper conduct of employees. The Tribunal noted the importance of identifying clients and held that the CHA failed in basic duties by accepting a fictitious entity as a client, leading to inefficiency in duty performance. 2. Failure to Verify Genuineness of Exporters: The main allegation against the appellant was the failure to verify the genuineness of the exporters. However, the appellant had taken due diligence by checking the DGFT website, confirming the genuineness of Import Export Codes (IECs) of the firms in question. The Tribunal observed that the appellant had verified the exporters' details through legitimate channels, making the allegation unsustainable. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that CHAs need not be responsible for verifying exporter contents and revoked the suspension of CHA licenses in similar cases. 3. Discrepancy in Treatment by Commissioner of Customs: The appellant argued discrimination based on differential treatment by the Commissioner of Customs in similar cases. The appellant pointed out instances where CHA licenses were not revoked despite more serious charges. The Tribunal noted the inconsistency in the Commissioner's decisions and emphasized the need for consistency in handling similar situations. It was observed that the Commissioner's actions amounted to a policy of pick and choose, leading to the revocation of the CHA license in this case. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the revocation and allowed the appeal, reinstating the CHA license of M/s Baraskar Brothers. In conclusion, the Tribunal found the revocation of the CHA license unjustified due to the appellant's diligence in verifying exporter details and the inconsistent treatment of similar cases by the Commissioner of Customs. The appeal was allowed, and the CHA license was reinstated, emphasizing the importance of consistent decision-making in such matters.
|
