2015 (7) TMI 24 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA license - Subletting of license - whether the work of import/export executed by G and H card holder is an act of subletting or not - Held that - All G and H card holders are the employees of the appellant. Apart from the employment of the appellant these G and H card holders are providing certain other services to the exporter/importers for that they are provided directly dealing with the importer/exporter but for custom clearances they are working as G and H card holder of the appellant and in the said capacity they are filing the documents. - in the case of M.D. Sadrani (2009 (7) TMI 1108 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) the fact is that the CHA allowed unauthorised persons to use their CHA licence for consideration which is not the fact in this case the persons who are using the CHA licence and G and H card holders of the appellant. Further, in the case of Shree Venkatesh Shipping Services P. Ltd. (2010 (1) TMI 1057 - CESTAT MUMBAI ), the issue before the Tribunal was that the CHA did not have authorisation in writing from any of the exporters. Admittedly, it was not a case of subletting of CHA license, therefore, the same is not relevant here. Further, we find that in the case of OTA Kandla Pvt. Ltd. (2011 (3) TMI 801 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) the facts of the case were that the CHA permitting employees of client to use their CHA license before the Custom authorities for monetary gain and removal of goods without obtaining authorisation from importer/exporter. Therefore the said facts are not applicable to the facts of this case. Charge of subletting stands not proved. - appellant is out of business from last more than three years and the said punishment is sufficient in the facts and circumstances of the case and the said view has been taken by this Tribunal in the case of Peak Agencies Vs. CC, Mumbai 2015 (4) TMI 27 - CESTAT MUMBAI . - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Revocation of CHA license based on subletting allegations.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the revocation of their CHA license due to allegations of subletting. The appellant was accused of allowing various G and H card holders to conduct business at a specific location. The appellant's counsel argued that the license had been previously canceled and restored, and the current allegations were based on assumptions. The appellant claimed that the G and H card holders were employees providing logistic services under the appellant's authority, not subletting the license. The appellant requested relevant documents and cross-examination, which were not fully provided during the proceedings.

The respondent argued that the appellant did not interact directly with importers/exporters, did not issue invoices, and received payments from the G and H card holders for clearance services, indicating subletting. Citing legal precedents, the respondent supported the revocation of the license. Upon hearing both parties, the tribunal had to determine whether the activities of the G and H card holders constituted subletting. The tribunal analyzed previous cases cited by the respondent and found them not directly applicable to the current situation.

In a similar case, the tribunal found that the appellant had not sublet their license to another entity, as the G card holder was an employee and acted on behalf of the appellant. The tribunal concluded that the charge of subletting was not proven based on the activities conducted by the G and H card holders. Considering the appellant's absence from business for over three years and previous tribunal decisions, the tribunal set aside the revocation order, restoring the CHA license with immediate effect.

Overall, the tribunal found no merit in the revocation order, considering the circumstances and previous rulings. The decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the subletting allegations and the nature of the activities conducted by the G and H card holders under the appellant's authority.