2019 (2) TMI 888 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - fraudulent import undertaken by (i) M/s M.A. Traders, Kolkata and (ii) M/s Z.S.Trade Com Pvt. Ltd. - contraband and mis-declared item - principles of natural justice - Held that - There are discrepancies between the statements given by Mr.Abid Ali as well as Mr.Maswood Ahmed. The appellant has sought cross-examination of both the witnesses. Though one of the witnesses is said to have appeared on 12.03.2018, no personal hearing took place on that date. Since cross-examination of the two witnesses is claimed to be significant to the defence for the appellant, we are of the view that the matter needs to be remanded to the adjudicating authority to pass denovo orders after extending an opportunity for cross-examination of Mr. Abid Ali as well as Mr. Maswood Ahmed - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
Revocation of Customs Broker License and forfeiture of security deposit.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the revocation of the Customs Broker (C.B.) License held by the appellant and the forfeiture of the security deposit. The proceedings originated from a show-cause notice issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) regarding fraudulent imports by certain entities. The Licensing Authority initiated proceedings against the Customs Broker based on the show-cause notice, leading to the revocation of the license. The Enquiry Officer concluded the inquiry, and the Licensing Authority passed the impugned order revoking the license and ordering forfeiture of the security deposit.

The appellant argued that the punishment imposed was disproportionate to the alleged offense. They highlighted that no penalties were imposed by the Commissioner in the show-cause notice dated 11.08.2017. The appellant emphasized that they were not involved in the import made by one entity and operated based on an authorization certificate from another entity. They also pointed out discrepancies in statements given by individuals during the investigation.

The Revenue justified the revocation, stating that the appellant contravened various regulations and failed to obtain proper authorization. The Revenue argued that the lapse on the appellant's part was serious and justified the Commissioner's decision.

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted discrepancies in statements and the importance of cross-examination of key witnesses. As cross-examination was denied by the Inquiry Authority, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for denovo orders after granting an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to complete the proceedings within one month from the date of the order.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a fair opportunity for cross-examination and proper adjudication of the matter.