9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Revocation of temporary CHA licence and forfeiture of security deposit u/s Regulation 21(c) of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. 2. Alleged violations of Regulation 14(a), (d), (j), (k), and (l) by the appellants. 3. Allegation of misconduct by the appellants, including acting as a consolidating agent for a Dubai firm and abetting smuggling. Summary: Issue 1: Revocation of Temporary CHA Licence and Forfeiture of Security Deposit The appeal was against the Order-in-Original by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, which revoked the temporary CHA licence of the appellants and forfeited their security deposit u/s Regulation 21(c) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. The appellants contested the order, arguing that the violations alleged under Regulation 14 should invoke Regulation 22, not Regulation 21, and thus the suspension and revocation were not justified. Issue 2: Alleged Violations of Regulation 14(a), (d), (j), (k), and (l) The appellants were accused of failing to obtain proper authorization from two passengers, not advising them to comply with the Customs Act, refusing access to records, failing to maintain records, and acting in a manner unbecoming of a CHA. The Enquiry Officer concluded that these charges were established. However, the appellants argued that they did not act as clearing agents for the passengers, and the statements of the passengers were uncorroborated and not subject to cross-examination. Issue 3: Allegation of Misconduct and Acting as a Consolidating Agent The appellants were also accused of misconduct, including acting as a consolidating agent for a Dubai firm and attempting to smuggle goods. The appellants contended that there was no bar against a CHA acting as a Shipping Agent and that the findings were based on retracted statements without corroboration. The Additional Collector of Customs had previously exonerated the appellants in related proceedings under the Customs Act, which the appellants argued should influence the current proceedings. Judgment: The Tribunal found that the legal contention of invoking Regulation 21 for violations of Regulation 14 was not sustainable. The Tribunal emphasized that the term "misconduct" was not defined in the Regulations and should be interpreted broadly to include any conduct rendering the CHA unfit for business. However, the Tribunal concluded that the evidence did not support the allegations against the appellants. The statements of the passengers were not admissible as they were not subject to cross-examination, and the retracted statement of Vijay Thakkar lacked corroboration. Furthermore, there was no bar against the appellants acting as consolidating agents, and the findings of the Additional Collector in related proceedings under the Customs Act, which exonerated the appellants, could not be ignored. The Tribunal set aside the findings of the authority below, revoked the order canceling the licence, and ordered the restoration of the licence. The judgment highlighted that the proceedings under the Customs Act and the CHA Regulations are independent but findings under the Customs Act have a significant bearing on the CHA Regulations. Separate Opinion: One member highlighted that the proceedings under the Customs Act, which exonerated the appellants, have an important bearing on the allegations of misconduct under the CHA Regulations. The absence of an appeal from the Department against the exoneration under the Customs Act constrained the Tribunal from overlooking this finding, leading to the conclusion that the appeal should be allowed.
|
