2024 (8) TMI 105 - AT - Customs

Revocation of Custom House Agent licence - forefeiture of security deposit in terms of regulation 20(1) of the CHALR 2004 - violation of the provisions of Regulation 13 (b) and 13 (j) of CHALR, 2004 for aiding and abetting in smuggling of old and used computer, peripheral laptops etc - HELD THAT - While it is an admitted position that certain documents could not be made available by the appellant to the authorities during the course of enquiry/adjudication process. However, the time interlude between the conduct of the said proceedings and the clearance of the imported goods need to be noted. In any case the primary documents like invoice was made available to the authorities. It is however nobody s case that any time lag in sourcing for document was sufficient enough to provide amnesty from the breach of the regulatory provisions. However, the admitted lapse need to be considered with rational implications. It is borne from records that Shri Tapan Kumar, the G card holder and Shri Chakradhar, the H Card holder of the firm were regularly associated with clearance of subject imports. Shri Sanjeev Kumar has reiterated the fact of examination of the imported goods in the presence of his own officers. The fact of any outsider named Sri Pappu however remaining present during the course of such examination cannot be considered an irregularity, illegality on the part of the appellant. If the department was so awry of an outsider s presence at the time of examination, it was for them to have directed such unauthorised outsider to be dispersed. It is found from records that the question of livelihood of the appellant has been in jeopardy for well over a decade - it is opined that the length of time having remained out of business, is more than sufficient punishment for lapses to which they have been pronounced guilty by the lower authority - the immediate direction for restoration of the appellant s CHA license at the earliest is made - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Revocation of Custom House Agent license and forfeiture of security deposit.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the revocation of their Custom House Agent license and forfeiture of security deposit in the present appeal. The case involved the appellant's role in customs clearance work for two import consignments, where discrepancies were found. The appellant claimed innocence, stating they acted based on documents provided by their clients. The department alleged misdeeds and non-compliance with Custom House Agents' responsibilities. The appellant's license was suspended, leading to the current appeal. The department conducted an enquiry under CHALR 2004, resulting in the contested order.

The appellant contested the order, claiming it was misdirected and failed to consider relevant evidence. Both parties presented their arguments before the tribunal. The appellant asserted innocence, while the department argued the appellant breached CHALR 2004 obligations. The department initiated proceedings under Regulation 22, alleging violations of Regulation 13(b) and 13(j) related to aiding smuggling and failing to provide necessary documents.

The tribunal noted discrepancies in the department's findings. The appellant was accused of violating Regulation 13(b) based on statements and lack of document submission. The tribunal examined statements and submissions made during the enquiry. It found discrepancies in the department's conclusions and the appellant's actions. The appellant's failure to provide complete documents was acknowledged, but the tribunal considered the time lapse and the involvement of authorized personnel in the clearance process.

In light of the discussions and evidence, the tribunal concluded that the appellant had faced a significant period of suspension, serving as adequate punishment. The tribunal directed the immediate restoration of the appellant's CHA license and annulled the forfeiture of the security deposit. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower authority's order.

In conclusion, the tribunal found in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the restoration of the license and the annulment of the security deposit forfeiture. The decision was pronounced in open court on 31.07.2024.