9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 625 - AT - CustomsRevocation of CHA licence - unauthorized usage of the CHA licence - contravention of the provisions of Regulations of the CHALR, 2004 - Held that - In charge-sheet dated 8-6-2009, no name of witnesses have been given or cited. Further, the statements of the persons which have been relied upon by the learned Commissioner, accepting the same as confessional in nature, but the said persons were neither examined nor cross-examined in the proceedings before the Commissioner and as such, have got no evidentiary value in terms of the provisions of Section 138B of the Customs Act. There is no evidence on record that the CHA license of the appellant have been allowed to be used by unauthorized person for monitory benefit. The observations of the learned Commissioner that in view of the fact that authorizations have been obtained by the appellant through the intermediary, the same are not valid. This finding is not tenable and the same is fit to be set aside. It is further pointed out that by way of footnote on the BCHAA Pass, it is mentioned - not valid for Customs work . Save and except venial breach on part of CHA under Regulation 13(n) of the CHALR, no other Articles of Charges are proved against the appellant CHA. - Consequently, the license of the CHA is restored forthwith and the balance amount of security deposit forfeited by the impugned order shall be re-credited to the CHA s account. Thus, the appeal is allowed in part in the above terms. - Decided partly in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Revocation of CHA License. 2. Alleged contravention of CHALR, 2004 regulations. 3. Validity of confessional statements. 4. Procedural lapses in inquiry. 5. Proportionality of punishment. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Revocation of CHA License: The appellant, M/s. Dakor Clearing & Shipping Pvt. Ltd., appealed against the revocation of their CHA license by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai. The license was revoked based on allegations of regulatory violations under CHALR, 2004. 2. Alleged Contravention of CHALR, 2004 Regulations: The appellant was charged with six violations under CHALR, 2004, including unauthorized transfer of license, failure to obtain proper authorization, improper transaction of business, failure to advise clients on compliance, lack of efficiency, and inadequate supervision of employees. 3. Validity of Confessional Statements: The Inquiry Officer found all six charges "not proved" against the CHA, primarily because the confessional statements relied upon were not corroborated through examination or cross-examination of the concerned individuals, thus lacking evidentiary value under Section 138B of the Customs Act. 4. Procedural Lapses in Inquiry: The Commissioner disagreed with the Inquiry Officer's findings, revoking the license and forfeiting the security deposit. However, the Tribunal noted procedural lapses, including the absence of witness names in the charge-sheet and the lack of opportunity for cross-examination, which undermined the validity of the confessional statements. 5. Proportionality of Punishment: The Tribunal observed that the CHA had already suffered significant punishment, with the license being suspended for approximately six years. The Tribunal referenced several precedents where similar revocation orders were set aside on the grounds of sufficient punishment already undergone. Judgment: The Tribunal found no evidence of unauthorized use or sale of the CHA license, nor any specific instances of regulatory violations by the CHA. The Tribunal concluded that except for a minor breach under Regulation 13(n) regarding the intermediary authorization process, no other charges were substantiated. Consequently, the revocation order was set aside, the CHA license was restored, and the forfeiture of the security deposit was limited to Rs. 25,000. The balance amount of the security deposit was ordered to be re-credited to the CHA's account. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed in part, restoring the CHA license and acknowledging the procedural delays and undue hardship faced by the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized the need for strict compliance with procedural timelines and the importance of fair inquiry processes.
|
