2015 (11) TMI 500 - AT - Customs

Suspension of CHA License - Levy of anti dumping duty - Appellants signed the blank documents for clearance of import of the said consignment without knowing the importer and without authorization from the importer - Held that - As per the violation of CHALR, the sole proprietor of CHA himself had admitted that he signed blank documents, Bill of Entry without verifying the identification of the importer on the advice of persons of M/s.Dayspring Shipping Pvt. Ltd. and without obtaining authorisation from importer. We find that there is no allegation that appellant abetted or contravened any provision of Customs Act in the import of goods nor any notice was issued against him under Customs Act for contraventions of provisions of the Customs Act. This being the facts of the case, there is no justification for extreme penal action of revocation of licence. In this regard, we find that the Tribunal in the case of K.S. Sawant & Co. Vs CC Mumbai 2013 (12) TMI 119 - CESTAT, MUMBAI held that a punishment to CHA should be commensurate with gravity of the offence and held that punishment of revocation of licence should be invoked as a extreme and harsh measure. - revocation of licence or any punishment on the CHA should be commensurate with gravity of the offence whereas the adjudicating authority ordered for revocation of CHA licence and forfeiture of deposit which appears to be very harsh when compared to the nature of lapse. Therefore, the revocation of licence and forfeiture of security deposit is liable to be set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Revocation of Customs Broker License under CBLR, 2013 based on suspension for filing Bill of Entry without importer's authorization and knowledge.

Analysis:
The case involved the revocation of a Customs Broker License under CBLR, 2013 due to the suspension of the license for filing a Bill of Entry without proper authorization from the importer and without knowing the importer's identity. The appellant contended that the importer faced nominal penalties and that no proceedings were initiated against them under the Customs Act. The appellant argued that the suspension period itself was a significant punishment, and there was no revenue loss. The appellant cited various case laws to support their argument and emphasized the lack of justification for revocation and forfeiture of the security deposit.

The adjudicating authority found the appellant in violation of several grounds leading to the suspension and revocation of the license. The sole proprietor admitted to signing blank documents without verifying the importer's identity, based on advice from other individuals. The authority highlighted the lack of due diligence and failure to comply with the Act's provisions as reasons for the suspension and subsequent revocation.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the punishment of revocation and forfeiture of the security deposit was too harsh given the nature of the offense. The Tribunal referenced a previous case to emphasize that the punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the revocation order and the forfeiture of the security deposit. Instead, they imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000 considering the circumstances and the period of suspension. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner of Customs to restore the license and security deposit upon payment of the penalty. The appeal was partially allowed, and the order was issued accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the proportionality of the punishment in relation to the offense committed by the appellant. The revocation of the license and forfeiture of the security deposit were deemed excessive, leading to the imposition of a penalty instead. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of aligning the punishment with the gravity of the offense and directed the restoration of the license and security deposit upon payment of the penalty.