9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 56 - AT - CustomsSuspension of CHA license - filing of false and incorrect declaration in respect of imports made by one importer M/s. White Lotus International who cleared the restricted goods against license issued for some other goods - Held that - Said ground of wrong importation by M/s. White Lotus International is no more available with the Revenue in view of the clear finding of the Commissioner that he was not a party to such declaration. Another import made by one M/s. Sunshine Enterprises, which were declared as plastic and wooden hangers on examination the said goods were found to be concealing memory cards inside wooden hangers - CHA did not got the KYC form filed from the appellant - Held that - Penal proceedings in the Customs Act are different than the proceedings in the CHA licensing Regulation Act. As already observed there is not even iota of evidence reflecting upon any knowledge on the part of CHA as regards concealment of memory cards in the wooden hangers or any evidence to show that he was aiding or abetting the said importer or was aware of his misdeeds. The importer has nowhere implicated the CHA in his various statements recorded on various dates. Further the statement of CHA is also exculpatory statement. As such, no reason to uphold the impugned order of suspension - allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.
Issues:
1. Suspension of CHA license under Regulations 20(3) of CHA License Regulations. 2. Allegations of filing false and incorrect declarations for imports. 3. Involvement in misdeclaration of goods by importers. 4. Compliance with CHA obligations under CHALR, 2004. 5. Implications of pending penal proceedings under Section 112 of the Customs Act on CHA license suspension. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the suspension of the CHA license by the Commissioner under Regulations 20(3) of CHA License Regulations. The Tribunal reviewed the grounds for suspension, primarily focusing on two instances of alleged offenses or contraventions by the CHA. 2. The first offense involved false and incorrect declarations made for imports by M/s. White Lotus International, where restricted goods were cleared against a license issued for other goods. The Additional Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva, concluded that there was no willful or guilty action by the CHA firm or its personnel. The investigation did not establish any deliberate misleading actions or involvement in misclassification of goods by the CHA. 3. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner's finding absolved M/s. White Lotus International of the wrong importation ground, indicating that the CHA was not party to the false declaration in that case. 4. The second instance concerned an import by M/s. Sunshine Enterprises, where memory cards were concealed inside wooden hangers declared as plastic and wooden hangers. The Commissioner alleged that the CHA failed in its duty to prevent misdeclaration, violating CHA obligations under Regulations 13(d), 13(e), 13(n), and 19(8) of CHALR, 2004. 5. The Tribunal examined the evidence and statements provided by the importer and the CHA. Despite the importer admitting the offense, there was no implication of the CHA's involvement. The CHA director stated that he was unaware of the concealed goods and had no knowledge of the offense. The Tribunal found no evidence implicating the CHA in aiding or abetting the importer's misdeeds. 6. The Revenue's objection regarding the CHA not obtaining the KYC form from the appellant was addressed by the CHA director's statement confirming a long-standing relationship with the importer. The Tribunal rejected the argument that pending penal proceedings under Section 112 of the Customs Act should impact the CHA license suspension under the License Regulation. 7. The Tribunal concluded that there was a lack of evidence showing the CHA's knowledge or involvement in the misdeclaration of goods. As the importer did not implicate the CHA, and the CHA's statement was exculpatory, the Tribunal set aside the suspension order and allowed the appeal in favor of the CHA.
|
