2013 (12) TMI 885 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA License - Violation of provisions of Regulation of CHALR 2004 - Import of zinc ingots under Advance Licence Scheme - Held that - appellant has obtained a letter from the importer to whom the goods be delivered after clearance and same is placed on record which clearly explicit that the goods are to be delivered at South Goods Carriers, Chatra Bhuj Bldg., 15, Ground Floor, 178, Sant Tukaram Road, Mumbai. Further, in the statement of clerk of the appellant who dealt with the clearance of the goods clearly says that the said consignment was transported by them in local vehicle for delivery to South Goods Carriers, Chatra Bhuj Bldg., 15, Ground Floor, 178 Sant Tukaram Road, Mumbai on account of M/s. Ventura Alloy (importer). It is further stated that Anthony D Souza (importer) was waiting at the said address when the consignment was transported to the given address and he had taken the delivery of the same. Further, we find that in this case, the clearance took place in 2001 and DRI started investigation in the year 2004. It may happen that in the year 2004 the transporter might have changed their premise or may be non-existent in 2004. But investigation does not reveal that whether it was enquired that in 2001 said transporter was there or not - Following decision of M/s. Sainath Clearing Agency Versus Commissioner of Customs (General) Mumbai. 2011 (3) TMI 292 - CESTAT, MUMBAI - Decided Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Revocation of CHA licence under Regulation of CHALR 2004 for alleged violation of Regulation 13(d).

Analysis:
The appellant, a Customs House Agent (CHA), appealed against the revocation of their CHA licence for violating Regulation 13(d) of CHALR 2004. The case involved the import of zinc ingots by M/s. Ventura Alloys & Electronics under the Advance Licence Scheme, with the appellant responsible for clearance. Allegations arose that the consignment was diverted, leading to the initiation of proceedings against the appellant under CHALR 2004. The charge was that the appellant failed to ensure the cleared goods were transported to the correct address, as per the advance licence terms. An enquiry found the charge proved, resulting in the revocation of the appellant's licence and forfeiture of the security deposit by the Commissioner of Customs (Gen), Mumbai.

The appellant argued that there was no discrepancy in clearing the goods, and they had fulfilled their duty by delivering the goods to the importer. Citing legal precedents, the appellant contended that they did not violate Regulation 13(d) and requested the impugned order to be set aside. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the appellant should be held liable for the diversion of goods due to the non-existence of the importer and transporter.

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the only charge against the appellant was the alleged violation of Regulation 13(d) of CHALR 2004. Upon examining statements and records, it was revealed that the appellant had obtained a letter from the importer specifying the delivery address, which was duly followed. The Tribunal noted that the goods were delivered to the importer, and the importer's existence at the time of import was confirmed. Additionally, it was highlighted that once goods are cleared and delivered to the client, the CHA's obligations under CHALR do not extend to post-clearance activities like transportation.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order revoking the CHA licence and directed the Commissioner of Customs (Gen), Mumbai to reinstate the CHA licence with immediate effect. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.