2017 (1) TMI 585 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA licence - smuggling and concealment - undeclared cigarettes of Dunhill and Mond brands . Scotch whisky was also found along with tyres - Held that - even though the enquiry authority has taken the view that the respondent has contravened various provisions of the Custom Broker Regulations, the adjudicating authority has given detailed reasons for taking a different view and holding that no such contraventions can be attributed to the respondent. Having gone through the records of this case, we find no reasons to take a different view. Hence, the impugned order does not merit any interference and is upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Revocation of CHA license under Customs Broker Regulations, 2013.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by Revenue against the revocation of a CHA license issued to the respondent under the Customs Broker Regulations, 2013. The dispute arose from a case of outright smuggling and concealment involving an importer who had filed a Bill of Entry through the respondent at ICD Tughlakabad, declaring Chinese tires as import goods, but the container was found to contain undeclared cigarettes and Scotch whisky along with the tires. The Customs department suspended the respondent's custom broker license and initiated an inquiry. The Commissioner (Customs) revoked the suspension based on the conclusion that the respondent did not contravene specific provisions of the Customs Broker Regulations. However, Revenue contended that the respondent was guilty of omissions and commissions under the regulations and deserved license revocation.

The respondent was accused of failing to obtain authorization from the importer, exercise due intelligence, verify the importer's antecedents, and supervise employees as required by the regulations. The enquiry authority found the respondent in contravention of the regulations, but the adjudicating authority absolved the respondent of all charges. The adjudicating authority's findings included that the respondent obtained the necessary authorization from the importer, there was no evidence of connivance with the importer in misdeclaration of goods, the importer cooperated in the investigation, and the conduct of an employee was satisfactory, indicating no contravention of regulations.

The Tribunal noted that while the enquiry authority found the respondent in contravention of regulations, the adjudicating authority provided detailed reasons for a different view, concluding that no contraventions could be attributed to the respondent. After reviewing the case records, the Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the adjudicating authority's decision and upheld the impugned order. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.