2014 (6) TMI 445 - AT - Customs

Revocation of the licence of the appellant-CHA - Violation of Regulation 13 - Transacting business through non employee - Held that - the appellant had authorised Mr. D. Belavendran who was an outsider and not an employee of the CHA to process the export documents filed by the exporter and submit the same to the Customs authorities, to attend the examination of the goods and also get the Customs clearance done. This position has also been admitted by Shri Kamlesh Gandhi during the cross-examination proceedings. Therefore, it is clear that the appellant-CHA sought to get the Customs clearance work done in the Customs area by transacting their business through a non-employee in contravention of Regulation 13(b). Similarly, the appellant did not furnish any authorisation issued by the exporter for transacting the business. In the instant case, the documents were filed in December, 2004 whereas the letter of the exporter showing that they have authorised Mr. Belavendran to represent them came only in April, 2005, i.e., more than four months after the transactions had taken place and, therefore, this cannot be considered as an authorisation as envisaged under the CHALR, 2004. Thus the charge of transacting without proper authorisation from the exporter also stands clearly established which is a confrontation of Regulation 13(a). - all the charges against the appellant, except that of subletting, stand fully established in the present case - No infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General), revoking the licence of the appellant-CHA. - Decided against the appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Revocation of CHA license due to misdeclaration of goods and violation of CHA Regulations.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the revocation of a Customs House Agent (CHA) license due to misdeclaration of goods and violations of CHA Regulations. The appellant, a CHA, filed shipping bills for export of garments on behalf of an exporter, misdeclaring the quantity of goods. Investigations revealed that the appellant had allowed an unauthorized person to handle the transactions, did not obtain proper authorization from the exporter, and failed to advise clients on compliance with Customs Act provisions. The inquiry officer found all charges proved, leading to the revocation of the CHA license by the Commissioner of Customs.

During the proceedings, the appellant argued against the allegations, stating no subletting occurred, proper authorizations were obtained, and the misdeclaration was the exporter's responsibility. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had authorized an outsider to handle export documents, failed to obtain proper authorization, and allowed unauthorized representation before Customs, violating CHA Regulations. The Tribunal also highlighted the appellant's failure to advise clients on compliance and its awareness of misdeclaration, leading to the revocation of the license.

The Tribunal referenced precedents to support its decision, emphasizing the justification for revocation based on violations of CHA Regulations. The appellant's reliance on certain cases was dismissed as not applicable to the present situation. The Tribunal also cited a High Court ruling emphasizing the importance of upholding discipline in Customs areas and following principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the revocation of the CHA license, dismissing the appeal for lacking merit.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of compliance with CHA Regulations, proper authorization procedures, and adherence to Customs Act provisions. The revocation of the CHA license was deemed justified due to the established violations and misdeclaration of goods, highlighting the significance of upholding discipline and regulatory standards in Customs operations.