2009 (3) TMI 530 - HC - Customs

Custom House Agents - consignments covered under the Shipping Bills filed by the respondents, on examination, revealed lower quality goods - alleged to have committed breach of Regulations 14(a), 14 (d), 14(l) and 20(7) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 - respondents are out of business for about one year and five months - Tribunal modified the Commissioner s order and directed that the revocation order - cease to be in operation - Now respondents can transact business as Custom House Agents Held that - taking a lenient view - violation of the CHALR is not very serious in nature and borders on to procedural irregularities - no substantial question of law involved - respondents can transact business as Custom House Agents.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order revoking CHA licence by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Allegations of breach of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations.
3. Tribunal's modification of the revocation order allowing the respondents to resume business.
4. Appeal against the Tribunal's decision based on a judgment regarding restoration of revoked licences.
5. Consideration of the seriousness of the violations and the Tribunal's power to modify penalties under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the Order revoking the CHA licence by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The respondents, Custom House Agents, were accused of abusing their licence by filing Shipping Bills for consignments with lower quality goods. The Commissioner of Customs found them guilty of breaching various regulations and revoked their licence. The respondents appealed to the Tribunal, which upheld the violations but modified the revocation order to allow them to resume business after a specific date.

2. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's findings of violations of Regulations 14(a), 14(d), 14(l), and 20(7) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations. Despite upholding the violations, the Tribunal considered the respondents' period out of business and modified the revocation order to only be in effect until a specified date, allowing the respondents to continue their operations thereafter.

3. The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in allowing the respondents to resume business after a specific date, citing a previous judgment. However, the High Court disagreed, emphasizing that the Tribunal has the authority to modify penalties under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations based on the nature of the violations. The Court highlighted that in cases where violations are procedural and not severe, leniency in imposing penalties may be appropriate.

4. The Court noted that the contravention in this case was procedural, and the respondents had been out of business for a significant period. Therefore, the penalty imposed by the Tribunal was deemed proportionate to the violations. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that there was no substantial question of law involved, and upheld the Tribunal's decision to modify the revocation order.

5. In conclusion, the High Court's judgment upheld the Tribunal's decision to modify the revocation order based on the nature of the violations and the circumstances of the case, emphasizing the Tribunal's authority to adjust penalties under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations.