9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (8) TMI 507 - AT - CustomsRevocation of CHA Licence - charges under Article 13(a) of the CHALR 2004 - Held that - The fact that the authorization from the importer also attested by the bank is fraudulently obtained came to know during the course of investigation when a report from the concerned bank was obtained. Therefore, at the time of clearance of the goods, appellant was under bona fide belief for acceptation the authorization. It is also a fact that at the time of clearance of the goods, the Customs officer has also not objected to the authorization - that the charges under Article 13(a) of the CHALR 2004 stands not proved as the authorization filed by the appellant was not objected by the Customs. While giving the personal hearing to the appellant, the Commissioner has not given notice to the appellant that he is not agreeing with the Inquiry Officer s report and the reasons for not agreeing with the report, thus the remaining charges also stands not proved - in favour of assessee.
Issues: Appeal against revocation of CHA Licence under Regulation 22 of CHALR 2004 based on charges of fraudulent import and undervaluation. Discrepancy in findings between Inquiry Officer and Commissioner of Customs (General) regarding charges under Regulations 13(a), 13(d), 13(e), 19(8), and 13(n) of CHALR 2004.
Analysis: 1. Revocation of CHA Licence: The appeal challenged the revocation of the CHA Licence under Regulation 22 of the CHALR 2004 by the Commissioner of Customs (General) based on charges of fraudulent import and undervaluation. The appellant was accused of clearing goods using a fake IE Code obtained fraudulently. The Inquiry Officer found the appellant guilty of violating Regulation 13(a) but not the other charges. However, the Commissioner disagreed with the Inquiry Officer's findings and revoked the CHA Licence, leading to the appeal. 2. Charge under Regulation 13(a): The appellant argued that they were not aware of the fraudulent nature of the IE Code provided by the importer and had obtained proper authorization for clearance. The appellant contended that since Customs did not object to the authorization, they should not be penalized under Regulation 13(a). The Tribunal, considering the appellant's bona fide belief and lack of objection from Customs, ruled in favor of the appellant, citing precedents like the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in SS Clearing and Forwarding Agency Pvt Ltd. 3. Remaining Charges and Procedural Lapse: The appellant raised concerns regarding the remaining charges, highlighting that the Commissioner confirmed them without notifying the appellant or providing reasons for disagreement with the Inquiry Officer's report. The Tribunal noted that as per legal precedents, such as the case of Delta Logistic, the appellant should have been given notice when the Commissioner disagreed with the Inquiry Officer's findings. Due to the procedural lapse in not providing notice, the Tribunal found the remaining charges not proved. 4. Decision and Relief: After considering the arguments and precedents cited, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and reinstating the CHA Licence with immediate effect. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and notice in cases of disagreement between the Commissioner and the Inquiry Officer. The stay application was also disposed of in the judgment.
|
