2015 (3) TMI 331 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA License - Inclusion of charges for dismantling of imported plant to the assessable value - Whether the CHA License of the appellant has been correctly revoked by the adjudicating authority - Held that - It has been categorically admitted by the importer M/s. BCL that they were not clear on the aspect of adding of certain elements to the assessable value and settled the issue by moving an application before the Settlement Commission. It is also observed from the records of the case that all the documents including insurance policies showing all elements of cost/expenses incurred were placed before the assessing officer at the time of filing of Bill of entry. There is thus no substance in the argument of the Revenue that appellant should have guided the M/s. BCL to add certain elements of cost to the assessable value. A CHA can not be expected to a better expert on customs valuation matter than the assessing officer. There is no evidence on record that appellant was aware of the fact that addition of certain elements of expenses incurred by the importer M/s. BCL were not includedand deliberately suppressed that information from the assessing officer. In the absence of any such documentary evidence, the order passed by the adjudicating authority is not justified. - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Revocation of CHA License under Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013 (CBLR 2013) based on the assessable value of imported goods.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed challenging the revocation of CHA License of the appellant along with forfeiture of security deposit and surrender of license, cards, and passes by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla. The appellant's representatives argued that the appellant had provided all necessary documentation as per check-lists and that the importer was unsure about adding dismantling charges to the assessable value. They emphasized that the appellant's role was to bring facts to the Revenue's notice, not to act as a valuation expert. The Revenue contended that the CHA should have advised on adding dismantling charges to the assessable value based on insurance documents, acting as a bridge between the importer and assessing officer. The Revenue cited relevant case laws to support their argument.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the case records, the Tribunal considered whether the revocation of the CHA License was justified. The key issue was whether the appellant was aware of the need to add certain expenses to the assessable value. It was noted that the importer had admitted uncertainty regarding these elements and had resolved the matter through the Settlement Commission. All necessary documents, including insurance policies detailing expenses, were submitted to the assessing officer during the Bill of entry filing. The Tribunal concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that the appellant deliberately withheld information from the assessing officer. The Tribunal emphasized that a CHA is not expected to be a customs valuation expert superior to the assessing officer. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the case laws cited by the Revenue, which involved clear CHA involvement, unlike in this case. Consequently, the Tribunal found the adjudicating authority's order unjustified and set it aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.