2018 (11) TMI 932 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA License - revoking CHA license of the appellant which had already been revoked on 25.06.2013 - Held that - The licence was nonest at the time of passing this order hence needs to be set aside on this ground alone as you cannot revoke a licence which does not exist - CHA license which is already revoked cannot be again revoked subject to it being reinstated by higher authorities - revocation order set aside. Revocation of CHA License - appellant has not verified the credentials of the importer, that he has got the documents through Shri Sunil Yadav a 3rd party; that he also obtained the GATT declarations which were blank and not signed by the importers - Held that - There were definite lapses on the part of the appellant - However, there is nothing on records, to show that the appellant was aware that firecrackers were being imported under guise of glassware in the container. Even the statements which were recorded by the Customs Authorities only point to the negligence on behalf of the CHA and it is employees but not to any complicity or collusion - revocation set aside and CHA license is restored. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Revocation of Customs House Agent License; Violation of CHA licensing regulations; Non est order; Revocation of license twice; Allegations of smuggling; Lapses on the part of the appellant.

Analysis:

1. Revocation of Customs House Agent License:
The appellant, a holder of a Customs House Agent (CHA) License, had their license revoked by the Commissioner of Customs due to violations of CHA licensing regulations. The revocation was based on investigations conducted in Mumbai and Chennai, where the appellant was found to have violated various conditions of the licensing regulations. The appellant challenged the revocation through appeals, arguing against the validity of the orders.

2. Violation of CHA Licensing Regulations:
The investigations revealed that the appellant had not fulfilled obligations under the CHA licensing regulations, such as verifying the antecedents of importers and other necessary documents. The appellant's employees were found to have filed Bills of Entry based on documents provided by a third party, leading to the importation of restricted goods (firecrackers) under false pretenses. The Customs Authorities alleged that the appellant's behavior facilitated illegal clearance of goods.

3. Non est Order:
The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was held that a CHA license, once revoked, cannot be revoked again unless reinstated by higher authorities. In the present case, an Order-in-Original revoked the license, which had already been revoked earlier. The Tribunal deemed the subsequent revocation invalid as the license was non-existent at the time of the second revocation.

4. Revocation of License Twice:
The appellant's license was revoked twice, first in Mumbai and then in Chennai. The Department argued that even if the first revocation was set aside, the second revocation would stand due to violations in Chennai. However, the Tribunal held that revoking a non-existent license is not permissible, following the principle established in previous judgments.

5. Allegations of Smuggling:
The Customs Authorities suspected smuggling activities related to the importation of firecrackers disguised as glassware. While there were lapses on the part of the appellant in verifying import documents and obtaining blank GATT declarations, there was no evidence of complicity or collusion in the smuggling operation. The Tribunal found the revocation of the license to be a severe measure not warranted by the factual circumstances.

6. Lapses on the Part of the Appellant:
Although the appellant's employees were found to have lapses in their duties as CHAs, such as not verifying import credentials properly, the Tribunal concluded that the revocation of the license was excessive given the lack of evidence of direct involvement in smuggling activities.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the Orders-in-Original revoking the appellant's CHA license. The revocation was deemed invalid due to procedural irregularities and lack of concrete evidence linking the appellant to smuggling activities.