9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1096 - AT - CustomsRevocation of CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - whether the Commissioner in the impugned order has rightly deferred with the inquiry report given by the Inquiry Officer appointed by him to conduct inquiry regarding the charges against the appellant for noncompliance of CHALR, 2004/CBLR, 2013? HELD THAT - Due to administration exigency there had been change in the Inquiry Officer by the ld. Commissioner. In fact this case four Inquiry Officer were appointed on the various occasions and the Show Cause Notice were accordingly amended by issuance of corrigendum. We do not find that the non-adherence of the time limit prescribed under Rule 22/20 of CHALR/CBLR be fatal in this case - Accordingly, there are enough reasons for non-completion of inquiry against the appellant within the prescribed time and the impugned order cannot be faulted on this ground as submitted by ld. Sr. Advocate. There is a clear evidence on part of the appellant as CHA to fail to discharge the duty casted upon under the provisions of CHALR/CBLR - the renewal has been made by the department following the prescribed procedure as the charges against the appellants were not proved till then. Having now inquiry report before the ld. Commissioner and subsequent disagreement thereof is on record and, therefore, the Commissioner cannot be faulted with a revocation of licence granted to the appellant for their involvement in the clearance of import consignment viz. drawing and design by their client M/s Tata Steel Ltd. - the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is sustainable under the provisions of CHALR/CBLR - Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Revocation of Custom House Agent (CHA) licence. 2. Non-compliance with CHALR, 2004/CBLR, 2013 regulations. 3. Alleged involvement in invoice manipulation and duty evasion. 4. Timeliness and procedural adherence in the inquiry process. 5. Validity of the Commissioner's disagreement with the Inquiry Officer's report. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Revocation of Custom House Agent (CHA) Licence: The appellant's CHA licence was revoked by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Administration), Kolkata, under Regulation 20 of CHALR, 2004 (now Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2013), along with forfeiture of the full amount of the security deposit. This action was based on the alleged failure of the appellant to discharge their responsibilities under the relevant regulations. 2. Non-compliance with CHALR, 2004/CBLR, 2013 Regulations: The appellant was accused of non-compliance with Regulation 13(e) and 11(e), 12(j), and 13(n) of CHALR, 2004 (now 11(d), 11(e), 11(j), and 11(n) of CBLR, 2013). The Commissioner found that the appellant did not properly advise the importer regarding the payment of duty on imported drawings and designs, and failed to disclose the correct value of the imported goods, thereby violating the regulations. 3. Alleged Involvement in Invoice Manipulation and Duty Evasion: The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) received intelligence that the appellant, as a CHA, was aware of and involved in invoice manipulation by their client, M/s Tata Steel Ltd., to evade customs duty. The appellant was accused of splitting the value of imported designs and drawings into hard and soft copies to reduce the assessable value and evade appropriate customs duty. The Commissioner found that the appellant was aware of the manipulation and did not disclose the true facts to the customs authorities. 4. Timeliness and Procedural Adherence in the Inquiry Process: The appellant argued that the inquiry process was time-barred as the show cause notice and subsequent inquiry report were not completed within the prescribed time limits under CHALR, 2004/CBLR, 2013. The Inquiry Officer initially recommended dropping the charges on the grounds of limitation and merits. However, the Commissioner disagreed, stating that the time limits were directory, not mandatory, citing various judicial precedents. 5. Validity of the Commissioner's Disagreement with the Inquiry Officer's Report: The Commissioner disagreed with the Inquiry Officer's report, which had recommended dropping the charges. The Commissioner held that the Inquiry Officer did not appropriately conduct the inquiry and failed to establish how the appellant violated the provisions of CHALR, 2004. The Commissioner provided a detailed disagreement note, stating that the appellant's actions, including the acceptance of a mistake by their Chief Logistic Officer and the manipulation of invoices, indicated a failure to discharge their duties as a CHA. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, finding that the appellant failed to discharge their duties under CHALR, 2004/CBLR, 2013, and was involved in invoice manipulation to evade customs duty. The Tribunal agreed that the time limits for the inquiry process were directory and not mandatory, and the Commissioner had the authority to disagree with the Inquiry Officer's report. The appeal was dismissed, and the revocation of the CHA licence and forfeiture of the security deposit were upheld.
|
