2003 (10) TMI 154 - AT - Customs

Customs House Agent's Licence - Revocation of Licence - claim of drawback - 3923 pieces and the value of the goods was about 1/10th of the value - HELD THAT - There is nothing on record to show that Kalra had retracted his statement dated 19-8-97. It is apparent from the material brought on record that Shri S.L. Juneja was not looking after the work relating to Customs as when Kalra was out of India during the period from 4-8-97 to 12-8-97, he did not bother to check up as to how the customs documents are being filed. It is on record which is not controverted that only S.L. Juneja, Appellant and Ashok Kalra were authorized to sign the Customs document. His negligence has led to the signing of shipping bills in question. He has thus not exercised supervision over the work as required under Regulation 20(7) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. We also find no reason to interfere with the findings of the Commissioner to the effect that he has contravened the provisions of Regulation 14 (a) and Regulation 14(b) of the said Regulations, 1984 inasmuch as there is no authorisation from M/s. Craft Creations Collection Inc on whose behalf the Shipping Bill was filed by the Appellant. Further, the Appellant has not conducted his business either personally or through an employee approved by the competent Customs Authority inasmuch as that the work was being conducted by M/s. TCT Cargo Travels. This is established from the statement dated 19-8-97 of Shri Ashok Kalra. There is no force in the submission of the Advocate that as no show cause notice has been issued under Customs Act, action for revocation of licence can not be taken. In the present matter the facts clearly show the contravention of Regulation 14 and Regulation 20 of CHAL Regulations, 1984. The facts in Sharp Cargo Movers are different from the facts in the present matter. The allegation in that matter was that the Appellant had entered into criminal conspiracy for availing wrongful benefit of drawback which had, tell the matter regarding renewal of licence was decided, not been adjudicated. In the present matter licence has been revoked for not conducting the business of Customs House Agent as per the Regulations. The Appeal is thus rejected.

Summary

Issues Involved: Appeal against cancellation of Customs House Agent's Licence u/s Order No. 14/Adj/KRB-2003 dated 30-5-2003.

Summary:
1. Background and Tribunal Directions:
- M/s. Skyways appealed the cancellation of their CHA Licence granted in 1985 due to discrepancies in an export transaction.
- Tribunal directed Commissioner to issue a show cause notice and adjudicate the matter.

2. Contentions and Findings:
- Inquiry revealed discrepancies in export process, shifting of responsibility, and lack of proper authorization.
- Commissioner observed violations of CHALR regulations by the Appellant and lack of supervision over employees.
- Advocate argued lack of authorization evidence, denial by exporter, and procedural errors in the notice.
- Departmental Representative cited specific charges, discrepancies in goods, and legal precedents supporting license cancellation.

3. Tribunal Analysis and Decision:
- Tribunal noted discrepancies in goods declared for export, forged signatures, and lack of supervision by the Appellant.
- Commissioner's findings of regulatory violations and lack of authorization were upheld.
- Precedents highlighted the obligations of a CHA and the seriousness of regulatory contraventions.
- Rejected the appeal based on clear violations of CHALR regulations and lack of compliance by the Appellant.

This judgment emphasizes the importance of regulatory compliance and proper supervision in Customs House Agent operations, leading to the rejection of the appeal against the cancellation of the CHA Licence.