2015 (11) TMI 1084 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA license - Forfeiture of security - CHA violated the Provisions of Regulation 13 (a) and 13 (o) of CHALR, 2004 - CHA did not verify the antecedents of the importer while the actual importer was some one else - Held that - The representatives of the appellant CHA firm has confirmed that he received the import documents from the person, Shri Manash Palit and was not aware about the actual importer. We however observe that the appellant s grievance of not allowing the cross-examination and supply of the relied upon documents were not addressed positively and to this extent, the principle of natural justice has not been followed. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. Commissioner and direct him to decide the case afresh after allowing cross-examination of the persons as requested by the appellant and after supplying copy of the relied upon documents if not supplied so far - Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Revocation of CHA License and forfeiture of security deposit under Regulation 20(1) of CHALR, 2004.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Revocation of CHA License and Forfeiture of Security Deposit:
The appeal was filed against the order revoking the CHA license and forfeiting the security deposit of the appellant under Regulation 20(1) of CHALR, 2004. The case involved prohibited goods being smuggled into India concealed among other goods. The appellant CHA firm was found to have failed in verifying the antecedents of the importer, leading to the revocation of their license. The Commissioner suspended the license of the CHA firm and later issued a show cause notice leading to the impugned order. The High Court observed flaws in the Commissioner's order, allowing the appeal to be taken up for disposal.

2. Principles of Natural Justice and Procedural Compliance:
The appellant contended that the Commissioner violated the principles of natural justice by not providing the documents sought for inspection or allowing cross-examination of relevant persons. The appellant argued that the order was passed beyond the prescribed time limit of 9 months, which was deemed mandatory. The Commissioner's decision was based on the fake authorization letter and the importer's denial of involvement in the impugned consignments.

3. Decision and Directions:
After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner's order lacked adherence to natural justice principles. The Tribunal set aside the order and directed the Commissioner to reevaluate the case. The Commissioner was instructed to allow cross-examination, provide relied-upon documents, and consider all points raised by the appellant, including the limitation issue. The Commissioner was mandated to pass a reasoned order within 3 months from the date of the Tribunal's communication, ensuring a fair hearing for the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of procedural fairness, directing a fresh evaluation of the case with strict adherence to natural justice principles and consideration of all relevant issues raised by the appellant.