2014 (12) TMI 984 - AT - Customs

Revocation of suspended CHA License - illegal import and misdeclaration of the value of the goods without obtaining necessary authorization from the importer - violation of Regulation 13(a), (d) and (n) of CHALR, 2004 - Held that - On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the learned Commissioner has held that the importer has filed blank papers and give ICE to some other person to import and he was not having any knowledge of the importation of the goods. On the contrary, the learned Commissioner has not given any findings on the production of the original authorization issued by the real importer and he has not doubted the signatures on the documents. In these circumstances, we hold that the appellant was having proper authorization for clearance of the impugned consignments. As the charge under Regulation 13(a) is not proved consequently, the charges under Regulation 13(d) and 13(n) are also not proved. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal by restoring the operation of CHA licence No. 11/617. - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Revocation of CHA license under CHALR, 2004 due to illegal import and misdeclaration of goods.

Analysis:
The judgment involves an appeal against the revocation of a Customs House Agent (CHA) license by the learned Commissioner. The case stemmed from the importation of a consignment by M/s. Bombay Traders, initially declared as unbranded Tissue Paper and Wall papers. However, upon inspection, it was discovered that the consignment also contained branded Filter cigarettes and industrial putty. This discrepancy led to proceedings against both the appellant (CHA) and the importer. The appellant was accused of illegal import and misdeclaration of goods without proper authorization, resulting in a violation of Regulation 13(a), (d), and (n) of the CHALR, 2004. Subsequently, the CHA license was suspended and later revoked by the Commissioner.

During the appeal, the appellant argued that they possessed valid authorization from the importer, which was presented to the authorities. The appellant contended that the authenticity of the authorization and signatures was not questioned, thus challenging the basis of the charges under Regulation 13(a), (d), and (n). Conversely, the Revenue's representative maintained that since the appellant and the importer were unfamiliar with each other, the charge under Regulation 13(a) was established.

Upon reviewing the submissions and the impugned order, the appellate tribunal observed that while the Commissioner found the importer unaware of the goods' importation, there was no assessment of the original authorization provided by the genuine importer, nor were there doubts raised regarding the signatures on the documents. Consequently, the tribunal concluded that the appellant had the requisite authorization for clearance, negating the charges under Regulation 13(a), (d), and (n. As a result, the impugned order revoking the CHA license was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, reinstating the operation of the CHA license.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the significance of proper authorization in import activities and emphasizes the necessity of authentic documentation to avoid regulatory violations. The decision underscores the importance of due diligence in verifying authorization and signatures to prevent unwarranted penalties on CHAs involved in clearance operations.