2014 (3) TMI 490 - AT - Customs

Revocation of licence of CHA - Forfeiture of security deposit of ₹ 25,000/- under Regulation 20 (1) read with Regulation 22 of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004. - right to cross examination - Held that - One of the major issues involved in this case is failure to obtain authorization of the importer. It is seen that the importer had taken a different stand before the Hon ble Madras High Court by swearing an affidavit that he had given authorization to the appellant and before the Enquiry Officer in the present case, he stated that he had not given authorization to the appellant. The appellant requested for cross-examination of Shri Raja Ananthan, Managing Director of the importer company before the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner refused the cross-examination on the ground that no reliance on his statement has been made in arriving at the negligence or dereliction of the obligation cast on the CHA. It appears that the charge of revocation of licence was framed mainly on the basis of failure to obtain authorization of the importer amongst others. In our considered view, the statement of Shri Raja Ananthan of the importer company is relevant for deciding the issue and more particularly, when there is contrary statement available on record, the cross-examination of Shri Raja Ananthan, Director of the importer company is liable to be allowed. Matter remanded to the Commissioner of Customs (Seaport) to decide afresh after allowing cross examination - Decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Revocation of CHA license under Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 based on failure to obtain importer's authorization, failure to advise the client, and failure to verify the genuineness of the IE code.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the revocation of their CHA license, arguing that they had obtained authorization from the importer, which was missing during the investigation but produced later. The appellant also highlighted that the importer had given conflicting statements regarding the authorization. The appellant's advocate emphasized that the import invoices were not forged and that the enquiry was conducted without issuing a show cause notice, violating Regulation 22(1) of Regulations 2004. Additionally, the appellant pointed out that non-verification of IE codes had been admitted for some importers, but the department did not claim that the importers were fictitious or non-existent.

The Revenue, represented by the AR, supported the findings of the Adjudicating authority and referenced the Settlement Commission's order. The Revenue argued that no reliance was placed on the importer's statement and, therefore, cross-examination was rightly rejected. The Commissioner had provided detailed findings on all issues raised by the appellant.

The Tribunal noted that the charges against the CHA were related to mis-declaration by certain importers and negligence in fulfilling obligations under Regulation 2004. A crucial issue was the failure to obtain the importer's authorization, with conflicting statements from the importer. The Tribunal highlighted the procedural requirements of Regulation 22 for revoking a license, emphasizing the importance of allowing cross-examination as per sub-Regulation (4) of Regulation 2004.

The Tribunal criticized the enquiry officer for not allowing cross-examination and stressed the seriousness of enquiry proceedings. It was deemed essential to consider all relevant evidence, especially when conflicting statements existed. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for cross-examination and a thorough consideration of all issues raised by the appellant. The Commissioner was urged to expedite the adjudication proceedings, with the appellant directed to cooperate accordingly.