Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2005 (12) TMI AT This
Issues: Revocation of CHA Licence and Forfeiture of Security Deposit
1. The appellant challenged the revocation of his CHA Licence and forfeiture of his security deposit by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai under Regulation 21(1) of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 (CHALR, 1984) based on a show cause notice alleging non-compliance with various regulations. 2. The case involved allegations against the CHA regarding the submission of a Shipping Bill for export of goods declared as "cleft randams slabs viscon white," which were found to be Red Sanders logs upon examination. The appellant denied filing the bill and claimed that his signature and seal on the documents did not belong to him or his employees. The Inquiry Officer found that the CHA allowed unauthorized persons to use his license for a monetary consideration, leading to the revocation of the license. 3. The appellant argued that there was no evidence of him signing the shipping bill or misusing his license. He claimed that the individuals involved were his employees, and he had obtained their identity cards from the Customs department. The appellant had been without livelihood for nearly two years since the suspension of his license and sought restoration based on similar cases where revoked licenses were revived. 4. The Appellate Tribunal considered the impact of revoking the CHA license on the appellant's livelihood and analyzed the evidence presented. They found that the appellant's claim of obtaining identity cards for the individuals in question was accepted, casting doubt on the finding that they were not his employees. The Tribunal also noted the absence of evidence regarding the alleged signing of blank documents for import/export clearances. 5. Considering the appellant's two-year absence from CHA business and the precedent of reviving revoked licenses in similar cases, the Tribunal decided to set aside the revocation of the CHA license. The forfeiture of the security deposit was upheld, and the appellant was directed to furnish a fresh security deposit within one week to resume work as a CHA.
|