2017 (3) TMI 162 - HC - Customs

Revocation of CHA licence - the interpretation that the respondent was under an obligation to physically verify the particulars, was misplaced - Held that - This Court notices that the CESTAT construed the provisions of Regulation 11 and the Board Circular of 08.04.2010 and found that the partnership firm involved in the import of consignment was an existing concern, duly registered under a partnership deed and two existing partners and that its IEC copy, PAN Card, telephone bill of the firm, Voter ID of the partners, copy of the partnership deed have been verified by the respondent - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order revoking Customs House Agent's license based on verification obligations.

Analysis:
The High Court was presented with an appeal challenging an order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) that revoked the respondent's Customs House Agent's (CHA) license. The allegations against the respondent were centered on the failure to properly verify the particulars of the party it represented. The Tribunal, referencing a previous ruling, held that the obligation for physical verification of particulars by the respondent was misplaced in the circumstances of the case.

The Court examined the provisions of Regulation 11 and a Board Circular from 2010, noting that the partnership firm involved in the import of consignment was an existing concern, duly registered under a partnership deed with two existing partners. The respondent had verified various documents such as the IEC copy, PAN Card, telephone bill of the firm, Voter ID of the partners, and the partnership deed.

Considering the factual nature of the controversy and the findings, the Court referenced a previous judgment and concluded that no substantial question of law arose. Citing Commissioner of Customs Vs. Him Logistics Pvt. Ltd., the Court dismissed the appeal and accompanying applications.