2018 (9) TMI 1604 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA License - imposition of penalty - contravention of 11(a), 11(d) and 11(e) of CBLR 2013 - case of applicant is that once the documents as allegedly deficient were already submitted, that there was no reason for revoking the CHA license under section 11 of CBLR as alleged - Held that - It is apparent from his application that in the financial year 2018 itself, he has filed 13,000 Bill of Entry / shipping bills. It is mentioned that as far as impugned consignment is concerned, it is one more consignment of the same importer, who was already filing Bills of Entry for clearance of the goods through the appellant/applicant and that the previous consignments have duly been cleared - it is prima facie apparent that documents have been complete with reference to the said previous consignments. It is also an apparent and admitted fact that for the impugned consignment also the importer, the CHA and even the introducer are same. Apparently there seems no question of different set of documents as that of KYC including PAN, authorization letter etc. of the importer. This Tribunal in another matter with respect to the present applicant itself, M/S. HIM LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. VERSUS CC, NEW DELHI 2016 (4) TMI 971 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , has also held that once CHA is ascertained to have followed KYC norms and verifying the copies of requisite documents, there remains no legal requirement on his part for physically verifying the business and their residential premises of the importer. Since the appellant, prima facie seems to have complied with the obligation cast upon him, revocation of his license is unproportionate penalty - In view of the arguments on behalf of the applicant that the order under challenge has not properly appreciated the fact of the compliance of Regulation 11C of CBLR 2013 on part of the appellant the revocation is prima facie opined to be harsh order causing prima facie irreparable loss not only to the CHA but to his employees as well. These observations are opined sufficient for staying the operation of revocation of CHA license. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay application regarding the revocation of CHA license under CBLR 2013.
2. Compliance with regulations and evidence of connivance in mis-declaration of consignment.
3. Impact of revocation on the business and employees of the CHA.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a Stay application concerning the revocation of a Customs Broker's CHA license under CBLR 2013. The applicant, a Customs Broker since 2004, filed the application seeking a stay on the revocation, emphasizing the adverse impact on the business and employees if the license is revoked.

2. The arguments presented focused on the compliance with regulations and the alleged connivance in the mis-declaration of a specific consignment. The applicant contended that all necessary documents were submitted, and there was no justification for the license revocation. Previous legal proceedings and the High Court's directions were also highlighted in the context of the alleged contraventions.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the evidence and observed that the applicant had a history of compliance and had handled numerous consignments for the same importer. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had received the required documents from the importer and had not contravened the relevant regulations as alleged. Legal precedents and case laws were cited to support the argument that the revocation of the license was disproportionate and unjustified based on the facts presented.

4. Considering the potential impact of the license revocation on the business and the livelihood of employees, the Tribunal opined that the revocation appeared to be a harsh decision causing irreparable loss. Citing previous judgments, the Tribunal emphasized the need for a careful and reasonable approach in revoking licenses, especially considering the livelihood of employees associated with the CHA.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the Stay application, stating that the revocation of the CHA license would have severe consequences on the business and employees. The matter was scheduled for final hearing, with the order for Dasti as requested. The decision to stay the revocation was based on the prima facie assessment of compliance and the potential irreparable loss to the CHA and employees, pending the final disposal of the appeal.