9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 584 - AT - CustomsRevoking the CHA licence of the appellant - Duty drawback claim - Overvaluation of goods - Held that - Appellant had not taken authorization from the exporter who was found to be non-existent and the goods were found misdeclared and highly overvalued. - The appellant did not obtain any authorization from the exporter. It never met the exporter nor was in touch with the exporter even telephonically. Thus the question of advising his client to comply with the provisions of the Act simply does not arise. It did not exercise any due diligence vis-a-vis the exporter. Thus, the Commissioner is correct in holding the appellant guilty of violation of various provisions of Regulation 13 ibid. As is evident the violation of Regulation 13 ibid is blatant and serious. - enquiry report was submitted on 16.1.2015 and the impugned order revoked the licence on 13.4.2015 and therefore the order was passed within the time limit prescribed under Regulation 22 of the CHALR, 2004. Several other judgments cited are in regard to reasonability of the punishment stating that the punishment should be commensurate with the offence. This ratio is unexceptionable. It is pertinent to mention that reasonability of the punishment and whether the punishment is commensurate with the gravity of offence is a mixed question of facts and law and needs to be determined in the light of factual matrix of each case. Offense is really grave inasmuch as no authorization was obtained from the exporter, the exporter was found to be non-existent and no due diligence whatsoever was undertaken. In these circumstances mere filing of shipping bills can not be tantamount to authorization more so when the exporter is found to be non-existent. The documents filed by CHA are treated with a certain degree of trust by the Customs and such trust was completely violated in the present case. Nothing can possibly be a graver mis-conduct on the part of a CHA than to file Shipping Bills in the name of a non-existent exporter without making even preliminary enquiries about the genuineness of exporter in the name of which the documents were filed. Such dereliction of duty on the part of a CHA, can potentially have even graver financial/security consequences. Thus the appellant totally failed to discharge its duties as CHA thereby grossly violated Rule 13 of CHALR, 2004. Such serious violation on the part of the CHA can hardly deserve any condonation or leniency. - appellant blatantly and grossly violated the provisions of Regulation 13 ibid and having regard to the seriousness of the offence, it cannot be said that the punishment awarded is unreasonable, excessive is arbitrary or is in any way not commensurate with the gravity of offense. - No infirmity in impugned order - Decided against the appellant.
Issues Involved:
Revocation of CHA license due to violation of Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations, 2004 (CHALR, 2004) by the appellant. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Violation of Regulation 13 of CHALR, 2004 - The appellant filed shipping bills for ready-made garments without obtaining authorization from the exporter, who was found to be non-existent. - The appellant failed to exercise due diligence and verify the antecedents of the exporter as required by Regulation 13. - The Commissioner rightly held the appellant guilty of violating various provisions of Regulation 13, which mandates obtaining authorization from the client and ensuring compliance with customs regulations. Issue 2: Penalty of Revocation - The penalty of revocation imposed by the Commissioner was deemed appropriate due to the blatant and serious violation of CHALR, 2004 by the appellant. - Previous judgments cited by the appellant regarding reasonability of punishment emphasized that the penalty should be commensurate with the offense. - The appellant's failure to obtain authorization, deal with a non-existent exporter, and lack of due diligence were considered grave offenses warranting revocation of the CHA license. - The judgment highlighted that the punishment should be proportionate to the misconduct, and in this case, the revocation was justified based on the severity of the violations. Conclusion: - The Tribunal upheld the revocation of the CHA license, stating that the punishment was reasonable and commensurate with the gravity of the offense. - The analysis found no infirmity in the impugned order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
|
