2004 (9) TMI 190 - AT - Customs

Customs House Agent - Revocation of licence - Forfeiture of Security Deposit - Non-compliance with Regulation 14 of CHALR, 1984 - Penalty - HELD THAT - In the instant case, admittedly, the Bill of Entry was filed by Shri Dasarathan, who was not an employee of the CHA at the material time. But it is an admitted fact that Shri Dasarathan had been authorised by the importer to file the documents and that such filing of the documents was done in the name of the CHA. The only defect pointed out is that Shri Dasarathan was not duly authorised by the Customs authorities for the purpose. In our view, this defect did not constitute grave offence for the CHA to be visited with the extreme penalty of revocation of licence. Any punishment should be commensurate with the gravity of the offence. Revocation of CHA licence can hardly be said to be commensurate with the above offence found against the appellant. The view taken by the Inquiry Officer appears to be preferable in the facts and evidence of the case. Regulation 21 empowers the Commissioner to suspend or revoke CHA licence depending on the gravity of the offence committed by the CHA. The Inquiry Officer appears to have reasonably assessed the gravity of offence committed by the appellant and, accordingly, recommended suspension of licence. The Commissioner chose to revoke the licence after his own assessment. But he has not stated good reasons to resort to the extreme step of revoking the licence. The reliance placed by the appellant's Counsel on Falcon Air Cargo Travel 2001 (11) TMI 137 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI seems to be apposite in this context. In that case, the Tribunal set aside revocation of licence after recording a finding that the offence found against the CHA was not grave enough to warrant revocation of the licence. We have considered the other decisions also and we find, that this Tribunal exonerated Customs House Agents, where there was no evidence on record to show that the CHAs had knowledge of their employees' fraudulent acts. In the instant case, we have also not come across any evidence of fraud or collusion involving the appellant. Thus, we hold that the licence issued to the appellant was not liable to be revoked. However, we are not inclined to interfere with the forfeiture of the security deposit which shall remain as a fine for the breach of Regulation 14(b). In the result, the revocation of CHA licence is set aside and the forfeiture of security deposit is upheld. The order of the Commissioner will stand modified accordingly. The appeal stands disposed of.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Revocation of CHA Licence
2. Forfeiture of Security Deposit
3. Alleged Non-compliance with Regulation 14 of CHALR, 1984
4. Double Jeopardy

Summary:

1. Revocation of CHA Licence:
The appellant, a Customs House Agent (CHA), had their licence revoked by the Commissioner of Customs (Port-Import) u/r 21(1) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations (CHALR), 1984. The revocation was based on findings that the appellant failed to comply with Clauses (a), (b), (d), and (l) of Regulation 14. The Tribunal, however, found that the appellant had filed the Bill of Entry duly signed by the importer, which, according to the decision in P.P. Dutta's case, did not constitute a breach of Regulation 14(a). The Tribunal also found no evidence that the appellant was aware of the forged Bank Guarantees at the time of filing the documents, thus rejecting the charge under Regulation 14(d). The finding under Regulation 14(l) was deemed non-speaking and unsustainable. The only conceded breach was under Regulation 14(b), which did not warrant the extreme penalty of licence revocation. The Tribunal set aside the revocation of the CHA licence.

2. Forfeiture of Security Deposit:
The security deposit of Rs. 25,000/- was ordered to be forfeited by the Commissioner of Customs. The Tribunal upheld this forfeiture as a fine for the breach of Regulation 14(b), which was conceded by the appellant.

3. Alleged Non-compliance with Regulation 14 of CHALR, 1984:
The Inquiry Officer reported non-compliance with Clauses (a), (b), and (l) of Regulation 14. The appellant argued that the Bill of Entry was filed by a person not on their payroll and that they did not submit the forged Bank Guarantees. The Tribunal found that the appellant did not breach Regulation 14(a) or (d) and that the charge under Regulation 14(l) was non-speaking. The only breach was under Regulation 14(b), which was not grave enough to warrant licence revocation.

4. Double Jeopardy:
The appellant contended that penal action under CHALR would amount to double jeopardy as they had already been penalized by the Commissioner (Exports) on the same set of facts. The adjudicating authority rejected this plea and proceeded to determine the appellant's liability under CHALR, 1984.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the revocation of the CHA licence but upheld the forfeiture of the security deposit. The appeal was disposed of with the order of the Commissioner modified accordingly.