2017 (1) TMI 582 - HC - Customs

Revocation of CHA licence - opportunity of being heard - Held that - the show-cause notice was issued on 16.04.2015; the enquiry officer s report was made on 30.06.2015; the Disciplinary Authority s order was made on 06.10.2015 and the impugned order of the CESTAT is of 28.04.2016 - the technical breaches alleged against the respondent, even if held well founded, are of no such magnitude as to deprive it of the CHA licence, altogether - matter on remand - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to revoke Customs House Agent's (CHA) license without affording an opportunity, compliance with Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013, natural justice, remittance of the matter for fresh opportunity.

Analysis:
The High Court addressed the issue of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) revoking the respondent's Customs House Agent's (CHA) license without providing an opportunity for the respondent to present their case. The respondent was accused of non-compliance with Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013, specifically Regulations 11(d) and 11(e), by failing to exercise due diligence and conduct necessary checks on imported consignments. The enquiry report did not establish the respondent's guilt, but the Disciplinary/Adjudicating Authority ruled otherwise. The Tribunal criticized the procedure followed, emphasizing that revocation without granting an opportunity was unjustified based on the enquiry report's findings.

The Court considered the timeline of events in the case, noting that the show-cause notice was issued on 16.04.2015, the enquiry officer's report was submitted on 30.06.2015, the Disciplinary Authority's order was issued on 06.10.2015, and the CESTAT's order was dated 28.04.2016. The Court concluded that even if the technical breaches against the respondent were proven, they were not significant enough to warrant complete deprivation of the CHA license. Therefore, the Court determined that in the interest of justice, remitting the matter for a fresh opportunity and further decision-making was unnecessary, as the revocation had already been in effect for over six months.

In the final judgment, the Court stated that while the Tribunal's findings on natural justice were acceptable, it should have remitted the matter for further consideration. However, the Court found no substantial question of law arising from the case and consequently dismissed the appeal and accompanying applications. The judgment highlights the importance of procedural fairness, the need for opportunities to be provided for presenting one's case, and the balance between compliance with regulations and the severity of penalties imposed.