2007 (9) TMI 102 - AT - Customs

CHA is not supposed to look in to details of genuineness of importer if IEC number is produced by importer CHA is in good faith that documents given by his clients are genuine No evidence against CHA So charge of aiding and abetting the illegal import and suspension of license is unjustified

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against suspension of CHA Licence under CHALR, 2004.

Analysis:
The appellant, holding a CHA licence for over 50 years, appealed against the suspension of the licence by the Commissioner of Customs. The appellant argued that despite proper authorization and maintenance of statutory registers, the authorities initiated investigations regarding mis-declaration in import-export consignments handled by the appellant. The suspension was initially set aside by the Tribunal for a fair hearing, but the Commissioner later confirmed it in the impugned order dated 1-05-2007.

Upon examination, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the impugned order. The employees of the CHA firm were not arrested as mentioned in the order, and there were no allegations or inculpatory statements against the appellant regarding the alleged mis-declaration. The Commissioner invoked Regulation 12 of CHALR, 2004, regarding the sale or transfer of CHA licences, which was deemed inapplicable in this case as the appellant had not transferred the licence. The Tribunal also referenced precedents to establish that procuring work on a commission basis does not constitute sub-letting of the licence.

Furthermore, the Commissioner accused the appellant of aiding and abetting fraudulent activities by not verifying the genuineness of the importer. However, the Tribunal held that the appellant, as a CHA, is not obligated to scrutinize the importer's details beyond the provided information. The Tribunal cited various case laws to support this stance and emphasized that the charge of aiding and abetting lacked substantial evidence.

Conclusively, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that there was no violation of relevant regulations under CHALR, 2004. The impugned order was deemed unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.