2016 (8) TMI 304 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA licence forfeiture of whole security deposit held by the department authorization from the exporter was not obtained by the appellant - Held that - Regulation 13(a) A Custom House Agent shall obtain an authorization from each of the companies, firms or individuals by whom he is for the time being employed as Customs House Agent and produce such authorization whenever required by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs. Authorization letter dated 06.04.2010 was available with the appellants. There is no doubt that appellant should have given a copy of the authorization at the earliest but at the same time the authorization dated 06.04.2010 has not been proved by the Revenue to be forged. Appellant CHA licence was not suspended for nearly five years from the date of detection in April 2010 and no irregularity was committed by the appellant till the impugned Adjudication order was passed - appeal allowed decided in favor of appellant.

Issues: Revocation of CHA license under Regulation 20 of CHALR 2004 and forfeiture of security deposit.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Original revoking the CHA license and ordering forfeiture of the security deposit. The appellant argued that the authorization from the exporter was available with them but could not be produced during the investigation. The appellant submitted a copy of the authorization dated 06.04.2010 in their reply to the show cause notice. The Adjudicating authority did not doubt the authenticity of the document or investigate if it was forged. The appellant was penalized under Regulation 13(a) for not producing proof of obtaining authorization from the exporter. The appellant's license was wrongly revoked, as argued by the appellant's counsel, based on the lack of evidence that the authorization was not available with the client.

2. The Revenue contended that no authorization was obtained from the exporter by the appellant, and the authorization letter dated 06.04.2010 was a forged document submitted as a cover-up. The Adjudicating order was strongly defended by the Revenue. However, the Adjudicating authority did not record any findings regarding the alleged forgery of the authorization letter. The Revenue failed to establish that the authorization dated 06.04.2010 was not in possession of the appellant.

3. The CHA license was revoked and the security deposit forfeited under Regulation 13(a) of the CHALR 2004, which requires obtaining authorization from the companies the agent is employed by. The appellant argued that they had the authorization but could not produce it during the investigation. The Adjudicating authority did not investigate the alleged forgery of the authorization letter. The appellant's license was not suspended for nearly five years from the detection date in April 2010, and no irregularity was found until the Adjudication order was passed. The Tribunal held that the authorization letter was available with the appellants, and the Revenue failed to prove it was forged. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the revocation of the CHA license and the forfeiture of the security deposit.

This detailed analysis highlights the arguments presented by both parties, the regulatory provisions involved, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the decision to allow the appeal.

← Previous Next →