2012 (12) TMI 162 - HC - Customs

Revocation of CHA license alleged that CHA sublet his licence by signing blank papers Tribunal had found that those persons to whom the appellant had given blank signed papers had cheated the Government and it was not surprising that bulk of the amount was recovered after the fraud was detected. The appellant handed over signed blank documents to others and allowed them to operate in his name. After the commission of fraud by such persons, the appellant put forward the plea of alibi. Tribunal further recording findings in categorical terms that the license given to the Customs House Agents is not an instrument to seek rental income for putting signatures on blank documents. It has also been found that during the period in question the appellant was not doing any active job of Customs House Agent and was busy only signing the documents and that there was no reason to give any opportunity to the appellant to seek such income exposing the revenue to huge risk. Held that - there is no error in the order passed by the Tribunal. - if a power of attorney holder of a Customs House Agent commits fraudulent activities then the principal is responsible to the same extent. Decision in the case of Sri Kamakshi Agency v. Commissioner of Customs, Madras (2000 (11) TMI 144 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS) followed.

Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against Tribunal's order.
2. Whether a Customs House Agent sublet his license by signing blank papers.
3. Validity of findings regarding the appellant's involvement in fraudulent activities.
4. Revocation of CHA license and forfeiture of guarantee.
5. Opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses.
6. Responsibility of principal for actions of power of attorney holder.
7. Reference to judgment of Madras High Court and its finality.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the Tribunal's order dated 3-8-2011. The appeal required a substantive question of law to be raised for admission.

2. The main issue raised was whether a Customs House Agent sublet his license by signing blank papers. The Tribunal found that the appellant had handed over signed blank documents to others, allowing them to operate in his name. The Tribunal concluded that the license of a CHA is not meant for seeking rental income by signing blank documents.

3. The Tribunal's findings indicated that the appellant was not actively performing his duties as a Customs House Agent, leading to the revocation of his license and forfeiture of the guarantee. The Tribunal also highlighted the risk posed to revenue by the appellant's actions.

4. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order, stating that there was no error in the findings recorded. The order resulted in the revocation of the CHA license and forfeiture of the guarantee furnished by the appellant.

5. The appellant argued that they were not given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. However, the High Court found this argument untimely, as the Tribunal had already dismissed the appeal after detailed consideration and upheld the Commissioner's order revoking the license.

6. The High Court emphasized the responsibility of the principal for the actions of the power of attorney holder, citing a judgment of the Madras High Court. The Madras High Court's decision highlighted the serious consequences of misconduct by a Customs House Agent and the liability of the principal for such actions.

7. The High Court referred to the finality of the judgment of the Madras High Court in a similar case, indicating that the opinion expressed in that judgment had been upheld. As a result, the High Court dismissed the instant appeal, as it did not merit admission based on the findings and precedents cited.

← Previous Next →