9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 858 - HC - CustomsProceedings against CHA - Revocation of petitioner s Customs House Agent license - forfeiture of the security - Held that - CESTAT has has held that the HSS agreement at the time of clearance was examined by the officers of Customs who cleared the goods and there is no allegation that the said agreement is fabricated one entered into by the parties to the contract. The Tribunal further held that HSS agreement was executed prior to imports, therefore, proceedings under CHALR, 2004 cannot be initiated for this act of the petitioner. Besides on the issue of diversion of goods, the Tribunal has given findings that the petitioner was not in the knowledge of the diversion of goods by the importer. This is for the reason that the petitioner had handed over the imported goods to the representative of the importer. - This court has not granted any interim stay of the order of CESTAT - As a consequence the Commissioner of Customs (General) is bound to implement the order dated 9 October 2012 of CESTAT. - respondent No. 2 is directed to implement the order dated 9 October 2012 of the Tribunal within four weeks from today. - Decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Restoration of CHA license as per CESTAT order 2. Revocation of CHA license by Commissioner of Customs 3. Allegations against the petitioner regarding diversion of goods 4. Appeal by petitioner to CESTAT 5. CESTAT's decision in favor of the petitioner 6. Challenge by Commissioner of Customs 7. Implementation of CESTAT's order Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought direction to restore their CHA license in compliance with the CESTAT order. The Commissioner of Customs had revoked the petitioner's license and ordered forfeiture based on alleged breaches of Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations, specifically Regulations 13(d), 13(e), and 13(n). The primary accusation was the petitioner's involvement in diverting goods in the local market instead of utilizing them as required under the Advance Licence Scheme. 2. The Commissioner initiated proceedings against the petitioner, appointing an Inquiry Officer who found in favor of the petitioner with minor exceptions. However, the Commissioner disregarded this report and proceeded with revoking the license and forfeiting the security deposit. The petitioner then appealed to CESTAT, which, in its decision, highlighted the lack of evidence linking the petitioner to the diversion of goods and emphasized that the petitioner had handed over the imported goods to the importer's representative. 3. Despite CESTAT ruling in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner challenged this decision in Customs Appeal No. 22 of 2013. The High Court admitted the appeal but did not grant an interim stay, thereby requiring the Commissioner to implement CESTAT's order. Consequently, the High Court directed the Commissioner to execute the CESTAT order dated 9 October 2012, emphasizing the need for timely compliance. 4. Acknowledging the petitioner's significant business losses since the revocation of the license in November 2010, the High Court rejected the request for a stay on its order, emphasizing the Commissioner's obligation to act promptly. The judgment underscored the importance of enforcing legal decisions without unnecessary delay, especially considering the adverse impact on the petitioner's business operations.
|
