2004 (6) TMI 175 - AT - Customs

Revocation of Customs House Agent (CHA) licence - forfeiture of security - HELD THAT - In the present case, admittedly, the licence was suspended as early as in 1998 and was revoked in September, 2000. Apparently, the appellant has suffered enough on account of the orders of the Commissioner. The appellant has gone without CHA business as a means of livelihood ever since 1998. Nearly 6 years have elapsed. Consequently his employees too must have suffered. Thus, we are of the view that the revocation of the licence should be undone at this juncture. Accordingly, we hold that the order of revocation of the appellant's CHA licence, passed by the Commissioner of Customs, shall not be in force beyond 30-6-2004. Consequently, the CHA licence will stand revived with effect from 1-7-2004. We, however, make it clear that the Commissioner's order for forfeiture of security shall stand. It is up to the Commissioner to require the party to make fresh security deposit incidental to revival of the licence. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to the order of revocation of CHA licence and forfeiture of security u/s Regulation 21(1)(b) of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984.

Summary:
The appellant, a Customs House Agent (CHA), allowed third parties to use his CHA licence for processing export documents, leading to misdeclaration and subsequent detection by Customs authorities. The Commissioner of Customs suspended the appellant's licence in 1998 and later revoked it in 2000, along with ordering forfeiture of the security deposit. The appellant's appeal contested the revocation and forfeiture.

The appellant admitted to allowing misuse of his licence by others, breaching obligations under Regulation No. 14. The appellant sought leniency based on the hardships faced since suspension, depositing penalties, and cited precedents supporting lenient views in similar cases. The Senior Departmental Representative (SDR) opposed leniency, emphasizing the seriousness of repeat offences and the Tribunal's limited power to overturn lower authorities' decisions.

After considering submissions and case law, the Tribunal noted the discretion to take a lenient view based on specific circumstances. Acknowledging the appellant's prolonged hardship and the lack of distinction between leniency and discretion, the Tribunal decided to undo the revocation of the CHA licence, effective from July 1, 2004. The order for forfeiture of security was upheld, leaving it to the Commissioner to require a fresh security deposit upon licence revival.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of with the revocation of the CHA licence being lifted, effective from July 1, 2004, while the order for forfeiture of security remained in force, subject to the Commissioner's discretion regarding a new security deposit.