2014 (1) TMI 1478 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA license - Fraudulent export under Buy Back System were affected - Availment of excess ineligible Drawback - Held that - When a person is not having a customs pass and a trainee employee as contended by the appellant, in that situation, the clearance were conducted is against the provision of CHALR, 2004, as the same was done without any authority of the appellant that the act was within the knowledge of the appellant - work has been brought by one Shri Mahesh Pande to Shri Sumit V. Ghatkamble to whom the appellant has allowed to use their CHA licence for some consideration - no permission has been obtained and that Shri Sumit V. Ghatkamble was not holding custom pass in the name of charged CHA while undertaking customs clearance of the subject export goods under the ten shipping bills of M/s. Leevon Overseas. Therefore, the charge under Article 12 has been proved against the appellant is beyond doubt - export clearance was held by Shri Sumit V. Ghatkamble and no clearance work was attended by any of the Director of the CHA firm or their employee having the custom pass - charges alleged against the appellants under CHALR, 2004 are stands proved - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Revocation of CHA licence due to involvement in fraudulent export activities under Buy Back System.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the revocation of a CHA licence due to involvement in fraudulent export activities. The investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence revealed a syndicate conducting fraudulent exports of readymade garments under the Buy Back System, availing excess Drawback through overvaluation without foreign remittances. The syndicate, including individuals without valid CHA licences, used CHA licences of other firms for clearances. The appellant was found involved in clearing the impugned consignment. Statements were recorded, and an enquiry under CHALR, 2004 confirmed violations, leading to the revocation of the CHA licence.

The appellant argued inconsistency in revocation decisions, citing similar cases where penalties differed. They referenced tribunal decisions noting harsh punishments and lack of consistency in revocations. Additionally, they claimed a trainee employee's involvement did not warrant revocation under Regulation 12. The appellant also cited precedents where procuring work on commission basis did not constitute license subletting.

The Tribunal found the appellant's involvement in unauthorized clearances by an individual without a customs pass, against CHALR provisions. The appellant allowed the unauthorized use of their CHA licence for consideration, confirming the charge under Article 12. Distinctions were made from similar cases where regular employees with customs passes handled clearances. The Tribunal upheld the revocation, rejecting arguments of inconsistency and insufficient consideration of employee status, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the revocation of the CHA licence, emphasizing the unauthorized clearances and lack of authority in the appellant's actions. The decision highlighted the distinction from similar cases and confirmed the charges under CHALR, 2004, as proved, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.