2014 (11) TMI 855 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA License - Forfeiture of security deposit - contraventions of Regulations 13(a), (d) and (e) of the CHALR, 2004 - Held that - In the enquiry report it has been clearly stated that the charges of contravention of Regulations 13(a) and 13(d) of are held to be not proved . The charge of contravention of only Regulation 13(e) regarding exercising due diligence is proved. There is no bar in the licensing authority, the Commissioner of Customs, taking a view different from those contained in the enquiry officer s report as held by the hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Delta Logistics vs. Union of India 2012 (286) ELT 517. However, if the licensing authority wants to take a different view, the appellant should be put to notice as to why the enquiry officer s report is being differed with, which has not been done in the instant case. The appellant should have been given a reasonable opportunity of submitting their defence against the charges made. Further, in the present order, the Commissioner of Customs, Pune has merely borrowed the mind of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai who had revoked the licence without making any independent examination of the issues involved. - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Revocation of CHA license and forfeiture of security deposit.

Analysis:
The appeal challenges the Order-in-Original revoking the CHA license and ordering forfeiture of the security deposit. The appellant argues that this is the second round of litigation, highlighting the lack of jurisdiction in the previous order. The appellant had no objection to relying on the enquiry report but was found guilty of lack of diligence by the adjudicating authority. The appellant claims a violation of natural justice as they were not given reasons for differing with the enquiry report. The Revenue supports the findings of the adjudicating authority.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that the charges of contravention of certain regulations were not proved in the enquiry report, while lack of diligence was established. The Tribunal cited a case where the licensing authority can take a different view but emphasized that the appellant should be informed of the reasons for differing with the enquiry report. It was found that the Commissioner of Customs, Pune merely followed the decision of the Mumbai Customs Commissioner, whose order had been set aside previously. As a result, the impugned order lacked independent examination and was deemed unsustainable in law, leading to its setting aside.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The order was to be given dasti.