9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (5) TMI 190 - AT - CustomsAppeal against revocation of CHA licence under Regulation 22(7) of CHALR, 2004. - On a complaint made by a person it comes to notice that appellant, appearing for Regulation 8, Examination of CHALR, 2004 is failed in SSC examination and the graduation certificate submitted by him is bogus/fake and matter was referred to CIU, it is stated that the CHA, deliberately made false statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 the CHA squarely failed to discharge their obligation under Regulation 13(n) read with Regulation 19(8) of CHALR, 2004 and merits immediate suspension and even revocation of CHA licence. Appellant submits that department during the course of inquiry proceedings both the charges were held not proved , but thereafter the Commissioner held the charges have been proved and consequently revoked their licence, which is not correct in the light of the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the case of Rajan Virji & Co. 2010 (1) TMI 955 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT Held that - In the course of inquiry proceedings, the inquiry officer has rightly held that the allegations are not covered under the charges under Regulation 13(n)/19(8). As the inquiry officer has held that charge has not been proved, do agree with the report of the inquiry officer that the offences committed by the appellant is not stand proved under Regulation 13(n) and 19(8) of CHALR, 2004. As the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rajan Virji & Co. is still in force and on merit also the charges leveled against the appellant are not held to be proved as the same are outside the ambit of CHALR, 2004, we set aside the impugned order and withdraw the revocation of CHA licence.
Issues:
Revocation of CHA license under Regulation 22(7) of CHALR, 2004. Analysis: The appellant, a partnership firm of CHA, faced allegations regarding the fake educational qualification of an employee, leading to the revocation of their CHA license. The Central Intelligence Unit's report implicated the appellant for deliberate false statements under the Customs Act, 1962, prompting suspension and subsequent revocation proceedings. The appellant challenged the decision, arguing that charges under Regulation 13(n) and 19(8) were not proven during the inquiry, citing legal precedents like the case of Rajan Virji & Co. The appellant contended that the educational qualification issue did not fall under the mentioned regulations. The appellant also highlighted the duration of their suspension as a form of punishment already endured. The respondent supported the revocation, emphasizing the admission of filing a fake degree and the potential jeopardy to legal precedents. The Tribunal considered the duties of a Customs House Agent (CHA) under CHALR, 2004, focusing on Regulations 2(c), 13(n), and 19(8). It was noted that the main duty of a CHA is related to the entry or departure of goods at Customs Stations. The inquiry officer found the charges not proved under the regulations in question, aligning with legal principles outlined in previous judgments. Reference was made to the case of M/s. Rajan Virji & Co., where the Bombay High Court held that a Commissioner cannot take a contrary view when charges are not proven during an inquiry. The Tribunal also cited the case of M/s. Delta Logistics, emphasizing the need for compliance with natural justice principles before differing with inquiry findings. Legal precedents were analyzed to support the decision, highlighting the binding nature of judgments until set aside. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the revocation of the CHA license, citing the lack of proven charges under CHALR, 2004, and the continued validity of the Rajan Virji case judgment. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision rested on the lack of proven charges against the appellant under the relevant regulations, supported by legal precedents and principles of natural justice. The revocation of the CHA license was withdrawn with immediate effect, aligning with the legal framework and precedents cited in the judgment.
|
