2017 (9) TMI 1568 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA license - forfeiture of security deposit - smuggling of Red Sanders wood, a prohibited item - violation of Regulation 13(a) and 13(d) of CHALR, 2004 - Held that - there was no involvement of the appellant in the attempt of illegal export of Red Sanders. Further, the appellant co-operated with the investigating officers - revocation of license and forfeiture of the security deposit at this stage is excessive and is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Revocation of Customs House Agent License under Regulation 20(1) of CHALR and forfeiture of security deposit under the same regulation.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the revocation of the Customs House Agent License and forfeiture of the security deposit under Regulation 20(1) of the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulation, 2004 (CHALR). The case involved an attempt to export prohibited Red Sanders wood, leading to charges of violating Regulation 13(a) and 13(d) of CHALR, 2004. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Officers detected the export attempt, which initiated proceedings resulting in the confiscation of the goods and penalties imposed on various individuals. However, the proceedings against the appellant were dropped as the Adjudicating Authority found no evidence of the appellant's involvement in the alleged conspiracy to abet smuggling. The appellant cooperated with the department and was under suspension during the investigation. The Adjudication Order confirmed the appellant's lack of involvement in the smuggling attempt, emphasizing the appellant's assistance during the investigation.

In a significant reference to legal precedents, the judgment cited cases such as Ajay Clearing Enterprise vs. Commissioner of Customs (General), Transport Logistics vs. CESTAT, Chennai, Shuvam Enterprise vs. Commr. Of Cus. (Airport & Admn.), Kolkata, and Akshey Gupta vs. Commr. Of Cus., New Delhi. These cases highlighted instances where extreme penalties like permanent revocation of CHA license were deemed unjustified when no substantial charges of abetting smuggling were proven. The judgments emphasized the importance of considering the appellant's knowledge and involvement in the alleged offenses before imposing severe penalties. The Tribunal's decision in the present case was influenced by these legal precedents, leading to the conclusion that the revocation of the license and forfeiture of the security deposit were excessive given the lack of appellant's involvement in the smuggling attempt and their cooperation during the investigation.

Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal filed by the appellant. The decision was based on a comprehensive evaluation of the facts, the appellant's cooperation with the authorities, and the legal principles established in relevant precedents. The judgment emphasized the need for proportionate penalties based on the level of involvement and knowledge of the accused in customs-related offenses, ensuring fairness and justice in regulatory actions.