2018 (1) TMI 1653 - HC - Customs

Revocation of Customs Broker License - the purported findings of the Appellate Tribunal that the Appellants acted on the basis of fabricated authority letter in contravention of Regulation 13(a) is without any basis or not? - Appellants transacted the business through unauthorised person in contravention of Regulation 13(b) or not - contravention of Regulation 13(d) of the CHALR, 2004 by not directly dealing with the exporter or the person authorised by the exporter without any basis and or based on no material on record or not - revocation of the CHA license of the Appellants is commensurate with the alleged contravention of the CHALR, 2004 or not? HELD THAT - This appeal is admitted on the substantial questions of law.

Summary

Issues:
- Revocation of CHA License
- Alleged fabricated authority letter
- Business transaction through unauthorized person
- Contravention of Regulation 13(d) of CHALR, 2004
- Commensurateness of CHA license revocation with alleged contravention

Revocation of CHA License:
The High Court, after hearing both sides and examining the Tribunal's order, identified substantial questions of law in the appeal. The court focused on whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the revocation of the CHA License (now CB License) of the Appellants. This issue raises concerns about the legality and procedural correctness of the license revocation.

Alleged Fabricated Authority Letter:
Another significant issue highlighted in the judgment pertains to the purported findings of the Appellate Tribunal regarding the Appellants' actions based on a fabricated authority letter, allegedly in contravention of Regulation 13(a). The court questioned the basis of these findings, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence to support such serious allegations.

Business Transaction Through Unauthorized Person:
The judgment also delves into the Appellate Tribunal's findings regarding the Appellants transacting business through an unauthorized person, which is suggested to be in violation of Regulation 13(b). The court scrutinized the evidentiary support for these findings and whether they are truly reflective of the facts presented in the case.

Contravention of Regulation 13(d) of CHALR, 2004:
A key issue addressed in the judgment concerns the Appellate Tribunal's determination that the Appellants contravened Regulation 13(d) of the CHALR, 2004 by not directly dealing with the exporter or the authorized person. The court questioned the validity of this finding, emphasizing the necessity of substantial evidence to support such regulatory non-compliance allegations.

Commensurateness of CHA License Revocation:
Lastly, the judgment evaluates whether the revocation of the CHA license of the Appellants aligns with the alleged contraventions of the CHALR, 2004. This issue delves into the proportionality of the penalty imposed in relation to the regulatory violations attributed to the Appellants. The court likely assessed whether the revocation was a justifiable response to the alleged infractions.