2016 (8) TMI 1383 - AT - Customs

Revocation of the CHA license - forfeiture of part or whole of the security deposit - Smuggling of various goods by way of concealment or gross undervaluation - revocation on the ground that CHA has not produced any evidence or facts to refute the conclusions of the inquiry officer that Bills of Entry of M/s Pujan Overseas filed by CHA - Held that - The activities of the appellant firm were controlled day to day, not by Shrimankar but by employees of Amol Shipping Agency. We do not see how this does not amount to transfer of the licence in all but name. Hence, we must hold that the first and second articles of charge have been rightly held as proved. Moreover, more than 100 blank shipping bill forms were sent to a third-party. Following these aggravating factors, the penalty of revocation was justified by the CESTAT. The revocation of CHA license and forfeiture of security deposit in the impugned order has been arrived at without appreciation of the evidence, or for that matter, the lack of it - the impugned order requires to be set aside in toto - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Revocation of CHA license based on alleged violations and misconduct.

Analysis:
The case involved the revocation of a Custom House Agent (CHA) license based on alleged violations and misconduct. The appellant's license was suspended and later revoked due to allegations of grave misconduct and violations of regulations. The Commissioner of Customs prohibited the appellant from working in Mumbai Customs Zones based on an investigation into smuggling activities. The appellant challenged the revocation, arguing that no employee was enquired during adjudication, and all orders were based solely on one witness's statement. The appellant also contended that the Bill of Entry in question was not filed by them but by another CHA. The department opposed the appeal, citing admissions of violations by an importer and alleging subletting of the CHA license. The tribunal carefully examined the evidence and found that the conclusions in the impugned order were based on presumptions. The tribunal noted discrepancies in the investigation and lack of corroboration for key claims, ultimately setting aside the revocation order. The tribunal referenced a judgment highlighting that revocation should be based on grave violations with mens rea or active facilitation, which was not established in this case. The tribunal concluded that the revocation was unjustified and lacked proper appreciation of evidence, leading to the allowance of the appeal with consequential reliefs.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented by both parties, the tribunal's evaluation of the evidence, and the ultimate decision to set aside the revocation of the CHA license. The case underscores the importance of proper evidence, corroboration of claims, and the requirement for grave violations with mens rea to justify revocation in such matters.