2015 (12) TMI 321 - HC - Customs

Violation of Regulation 13(a) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 - Held that - Commissioner refers to the entire materials, including the statements under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. These statements were relied upon. However, as held by the Tribunal, the core issue has been missed by the Commissioner. In para 19 of his order, the Commissioner refers to the admission in cross-examination by one Alpesh Bhanushali. He admits that the original authorisation letter from M/s. Bombay Traders authorising the Respondent to act as Customs House Agent along with import documents like bill of lading, invoices etc. were given by the said Bhanushali to the Respondent. The original authority letter is dated 23rd September, 2011. In these circumstances, by terming the authorisation as so called and faulting the identity of the importer, the Commissioner could not have proceeded against the Customs House Agent. He could not have been held guilty of violation of Regulation 13(a) of the said Regulations. Tribunal holds that the absence of any finding by the Commissioner on such a vital aspect vitiates his order. Once there was a proper authorisation for clearance of the impugned consignment, then, Regulation 13(a) is not violated. This is a finding of fact based on factual material produced. It cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Once the principal violation of other regulations cannot be sustained, then, the incidental and ancillary allegations of violation of the regulations must also fall to the ground - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1) Appeal challenging Tribunal's order
2) Alleged violation of Regulation 13(a) of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004

Issue 1: Appeal challenging Tribunal's order
The Appeal by the Revenue challenges the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order dated 20th June, 2014. The Appellant argues that the Tribunal erred in overruling the order-in-original dated 18th April, 2013. The Appellant contends that the Tribunal's reasons were inadequate and insufficient. The Customs House Agent was accused of violating Regulation 13(a) by not ensuring the importer's authenticity. The Appellant highlights specific paragraphs in the order-in-original to support their argument.

Issue 2: Alleged violation of Regulation 13(a) of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004
The Respondent argues that the Tribunal's order was correct as it considered all relevant facts. Import documents were handed over to the Respondent, including authorization letters from the importer. The Respondent asserts that these documents were genuine and not fake. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner missed a crucial fact regarding the authorization provided to the Respondent. The Tribunal concluded that since there was proper authorization for clearance, Regulation 13(a) was not violated. The Tribunal dismissed the Appeal, stating that no substantial legal question arose for consideration. The Tribunal's decision was based on factual evidence and not legally flawed.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the importance of proper authorization in compliance with Regulation 13(a) and dismissing the Appeal by the Revenue.