2018 (12) TMI 669 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA License - the allegation against the appellant is that he has declared only the chemical name of the goods and not the trade name of the goods imported - Held that - This allegation does not have any force because the appellant has declared the classification as per the direction of the importer and if there is a wrong classification as per the Department, then they should take it against the importer because on the same classification earlier also, the importer has imported the goods - there is no force in the allegation that the appellant has filed the wrong address of the importer because the Custom Broker has filed the address which appears in the IEC code. Principles of natural justice - Held that - There is a violation of principles of natural justice and the impugned order has been passed without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The finding of the Commissioner that the Custom Broker has not applied for renewal is factually incorrect - the forfeiture of security and imposition of penalty on the appellant is not sustainable and is set aside. The Commissioner is directed to examine his application for renewal of licence and decide the same in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Revocation of Customs House Agent (CHA) License under Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2013, Allegations of misclassification and non-disclosure of correct importer information, Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order without proper hearing, Forfeiture of security deposit and imposition of penalty, Failure to exercise due diligence and efficiency by the appellant.

Revocation of CHA License: The Commissioner of Customs held that the CHA License, valid until 16/10/2014, was liable for revocation under Regulation 18 of CBLR, but since the license had already expired, revocation was not ordered. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the revocation was not sustainable as it was passed without affording a proper opportunity of hearing.

Allegations of Misclassification and Non-disclosure: The appellant was accused of misclassifying imported goods and not disclosing the correct trade name and address of the importer. The appellant defended by stating that he classified the goods based on importer instructions and filed the address as per the IEC code, which is a curable technical error by the DGFT.

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The appellant claimed that the impugned order was passed without proper hearing, as the Commissioner did not grant adjournment despite the appellant's request. The Tribunal agreed, noting a violation of natural justice principles and lack of opportunity for a fair hearing.

Forfeiture of Security Deposit and Penalty Imposition: The Commissioner forfeited the security deposit and imposed a penalty of &8377; 50,000 under Regulation 18 of CBLR. The Tribunal found these actions not sustainable due to the lack of evidence supporting serious allegations against the appellant and directed the Commissioner to examine the renewal application submitted by the appellant.

Failure to Exercise Due Diligence: The appellant was accused of failing to exercise due diligence and efficiency in classifying the imported goods. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's actions were based on importer instructions, and the responsibility for classification lies with the importer, not solely the appellant.

Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the forfeiture of security and penalty imposition, directing the Commissioner to review the renewal application. The first appeal against license suspension was dismissed as infructuous, while the second appeal was partly allowed, emphasizing the importance of natural justice principles and proper opportunity for a fair hearing in such matters.

Judgment: The Tribunal pronounced the order on 11/12/2018, highlighting the significance of adherence to legal procedures and principles of natural justice in customs-related cases.