9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 418 - AT - CustomsSuspension of CHA licence - Regulation 20(2) of CHALR, 2004 - negligence of the CHA in respect of the goods exported from Mumbai - Held that - Enquiry was made as to the involvement of the appellant to find out whether he had any exclusive knowledge or special knowledge of attempt to export of the goods through M/s. A.S. Exports, Mumbai. Materials on record do not suggest active involvement of the appellant to conclude that offence was committed by appellant. Therefore before completion of the proceedings under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004 any opinion by Tribunal would result in miscarriage of justice. It is apparent from the record that two years have expired from the order of suspension under Regulation 20 (2) of CHALR, 2004. Proceedings under Regulations 22 of CHALR, 2004 has already commenced. Looking into the time already expired, it would be appropriate to set aside the order dated 27.07.2012 till conclusion of the proceedings under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004 - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Suspension of CHA license under Regulation 9(1) of CHALR, 2004 due to failure to follow KYC norms in export of specific goods. Analysis: The judgment pertains to the suspension of a Customs House Agent (CHA) license under Regulation 9(1) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 (CHALR) due to alleged non-compliance with KYC norms in the export of certain goods. The Commissioner temporarily suspended the CHA license based on an investigation report, which was later confirmed by an order dated 18.09.2012. The Department's allegations against the CHA included failure to supervise employees, advise clients on compliance with regulations, ensure correctness of information, proper conduct of employees, exercise due diligence in clearance, and ensure accuracy of declarations on documents. The CHA denied active involvement in the export of the goods in question, stating that another individual had used his name without his knowledge. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence suggesting the CHA's active participation in the offense. Given that two years had passed since the suspension order under Regulation 20(2) of CHALR, 2004, and proceedings under Regulation 22 had commenced, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to set aside the suspension order until the conclusion of the ongoing proceedings. This decision aimed to prevent a miscarriage of justice and allow for a fair determination of the CHA's involvement. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the suspension order, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the evidence and proceedings under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004 before reaching a final decision on the CHA's alleged violations.
|
