9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 874 - AT - CustomsRevocation of CHA License - forfeited of entire amount of security deposit - period of limitation - appellant submits that the entire proceeding of inquiry suspension and revocation of it is time barred. He submits that the mis-declaration was detected in January 2008 and the suspension of the licence was ordered in October 2012. - Held that - t only due to delay in various time limitation in the proceeding, the action of revocation cannot be held illegal. The time limitation provided in Regulations is directory and not mandatory. In view of this position, we are the view that the proceeding of revocation of appellant s CHA licence is not time bar. The appellant violated various Regulations which were held to have been proved in the proceeding by the Adjudicating Authority. It was also observed that the appellant has committed the offence earlier also as noticed from the judgment in the appellant s own case - We do not find any force in this argument for the reason that even if the offence is committed by employee but since it was authorized by the appellant to his employee, it is the appellant who is responsible for offence committed by his employee. The impugned order is legal and proper, which does not require any interference. - Decided against the appellants.
Issues Involved:
1. Revocation of CHA License and Forfeiture of Security Deposit. 2. Alleged Smuggling and Mis-declaration of Imported Goods. 3. Responsibility and Knowledge of the Appellant Regarding the Offense. 4. Timeliness of Inquiry Proceedings. 5. Validity of Charges Under CHALR Regulations. 6. Appellant's Defense and Previous Offenses. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Revocation of CHA License and Forfeiture of Security Deposit: The appeal challenges the Order-in-Original No 46/2014/CAC/CC(G)/PKA/CBS dated 04/04/2014, by the Commissioner of Customs, which revoked the CHA License of the appellant and forfeited the entire security deposit. The Commissioner found the CHA guilty of violating multiple regulations under CHALR, 2004, and CBLR, 2013, due to the involvement in smuggling activities and subletting the CHA license. The Tribunal upheld the revocation and forfeiture, emphasizing the seriousness of the offense and the appellant's habitual involvement in similar activities. 2. Alleged Smuggling and Mis-declaration of Imported Goods: The appellant filed a Bill of Entry for imported goods declared as assorted bath soaps and shampoo/conditioner, but intelligence revealed that the containers also contained garlic, which was prohibited and infected with a quarantine pest. The goods were seized, and the appellant's involvement in the mis-declaration and smuggling was established through various inquiries and statements. 3. Responsibility and Knowledge of the Appellant Regarding the Offense: The appellant initially denied knowledge of the transaction, attributing it to an employee, Shri Anish Sachde. However, further inquiry revealed that the appellant had signed the relevant documents and allowed Sachde to use his license for monetary compensation. The Tribunal found that the appellant's authorization of the employee's actions made him responsible for the offense. 4. Timeliness of Inquiry Proceedings: The appellant argued that the proceedings were time-barred, as there was a significant delay between the detection of the offense and the suspension of the license. The Tribunal, referencing previous judgments, held that the time limitations in the regulations are directory, not mandatory, and found that the proceedings were completed within a reasonable time given the circumstances. 5. Validity of Charges Under CHALR Regulations: The inquiry officer's report proved violations of Regulations 12, 13(a), 13(d), 13(e), 13(k), 13(n), and 19(8) of CHALR, 2004. The appellant's defense that he had no knowledge of the offense and that it was committed by an employee was rejected. The Tribunal upheld the findings that the appellant failed to discharge his obligations as a Customs Broker and was complicit in the smuggling activities. 6. Appellant's Defense and Previous Offenses: The appellant contended that the mis-declaration was the importer's offense and that the CHA should not be penalized. The Tribunal dismissed this argument, noting the appellant's admission of allowing the employee to use his license and the monetary compensation received. The Tribunal also considered the appellant's history of similar offenses, concluding that revocation of the license was justified to prevent further violations. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the revocation of the CHA license and forfeiture of the security deposit, finding the appellant guilty of multiple regulatory violations and involvement in smuggling activities. The appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the importance of strict adherence to customs regulations and the accountability of CHA license holders for their and their employees' actions.
|
