9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 835 - AT - CustomsRevocation of Customs Broker License - appropriation of Bank Guarantee of Rs.10,000/- - immediate suspension - grant of opportunity of personal hearing - principles of natural justice - whether the CHA has violated the provisions of CHALR 2004 and misused the license granted to them? - HELD THAT - From the findings given by the Adjudicating Authority in the present OIO, it is seen that none of the submissions relied by the Appellant have been addressed. The Adjudicating Authority has simply reiterated that detailed inquiry conducted by the Officer and that the contraventions are clearly coming out in the Inquiry Officer s Report and after this he has proceeded to go ahead with confirming the demand - while deciding the issue as to whether the present Appellant is liable to be penalised under Section 114, this Tribunal has come to a conclusion that no explicit findings have been given by the other Adjudicating Authority to the effect that the present Appellant has abetted in contravening any provisions of Customs Act. The Tribunal has set aside the penalties imposed under Section 114 on the present Appellant and their Director. The revocation of license is a very harsh measure and is liable to be set aside - However as admittedly some minor contraventions have taken place, it is found that CHA is required to be penalised with Rs.10,000/- which has already been done by encashing Bank Guarantee No.2/2007. Appeal disposed off.
Issues:
The issues involved in this case include the enforcement of security by revoking the CHA license, violation of CHALR 2004 provisions, misuse of license, abetment of fraudulent export, imposition of penalties under Customs Act, and the appropriateness of revoking the license and enforcing the security. Enforcement of Security and Revocation of CHA License: The Appellant challenged the Order-in-Original (OIO) passed by the Adjudicating Authority, enforcing the security of Rs. 10,000/- and revoking the CHA License. The Tribunal had previously remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority due to a delay in suspending the license, as immediate action was not taken. The Adjudicating Authority provided the CHA with the Inquiry Report and granted a Personal Hearing. The CHA contended that the revocation of the license was incorrect and unlawful, citing various reasons such as lack of evidence and negligence. The Adjudicating Authority found that the CHA had violated CHALR 2004 provisions, acted consciously against the law, and showed gross negligence, leading to an attempted fraudulent export. The Adjudicating Authority upheld the revocation of the license based on these findings. Misuse of License and Abetment of Fraudulent Export: The Appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority did not address their submissions and termed the OIO as a Non-Speaking Order. The Appellant referenced a similar case where penalties were set aside by the Tribunal due to a lack of explicit findings on abetment of misdeclaration. The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority failed to pinpoint the specific role of the Appellant in abetting misdeclaration, leading to the penalties being set aside. The Adjudicating Authority's decision to revoke the license and impose penalties was deemed unsustainable by the Tribunal, and the penalties were set aside in favor of the Appellant. Imposition of Penalties under Customs Act: The Learned AR contended that the Appellant knowingly contravened provisions, justifying the revocation of the license and appropriation of the Bank Guarantee. However, the Tribunal found that the contraventions were not addressed adequately by the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal also noted that explicit findings of abetment were lacking, leading to the setting aside of penalties under Section 114. The Tribunal distinguished a case cited by the Learned AR, where penalties were imposed, as the present case absolved the Appellant of all penalties. Conclusion: In conclusion, the Tribunal found the revocation of the license to be a harsh measure and set it aside. However, minor contraventions were acknowledged, leading to a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the CHA, which was already enforced by encashing the Bank Guarantee. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|
