2015 (12) TMI 1430 - HC - Customs

Suspension of CHA License - Bill of Entries were filed by the Petitioner on behalf of M/s.Shahi Foods, Chennai and M/s.High Regards International, Chennai, declaring the goods as biscuits, juices, confectionery, cheese, sausages and beverages without obtaining authorization and without verifying the antecedents, correctness and identity of their clients and violated the provision of Regulation 13(a), 13(b), 13(d), 13(e) and 13(k) of CHALR 2004 (Regulation 11(a), 11(b), 11(d), 11(e) and 11(k) read with Regulation 18(b) of CBLR 2013) that the said importers mis-declared the value and retain sale price to evade the custom duty and hence, the Petitioner was suspended from working/performing the customs related activities - Held that - The suspension of CHA licence was made on 19.11.2014, which was not within 15 days from the date of receipt of the report from DRI. On the representation of the Petitioner, the suspension was revoked by order dated 23.12.2014, accepting the delay of one year. However, by notice dated 23.12.2014 under Regulation 20, it was proposed to impose penalty and to forfeit the security, which is also barred by limitation. Despite the same, it is the case of the Respondents that on intelligence, it was found that the Petitioner misdeclared and undervalued the goods and has violated the provisions of the CBLR. - without going into the merits of the case, since the stay granted by this court in the other Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner is still in force and the subject matter of the said Writ Petition is also to be considered on merits and the application for renewal is also pending, pending consideration of renewal application, the Respondents are directed to permit the Petitioner to continue his business operations - Petition disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Renewal of Custom Broker license, Compliance with regulations, Suspension of license, Revocation of suspension, Imposition of penalty, Forfeiture of security, Renewal application pending consideration.

Renewal of Custom Broker License:
The Petitioner sought a direction to renew the Custom Broker license, which was suspended based on allegations of misdeclaration and undervaluation of goods filed on behalf of importers without proper authorization. The suspension was initially made without issuing a show cause notice as required by regulations. The Petitioner contended that the procedures under Regulation 22 should have been followed, including issuance of notice within ninety days from the date of receipt of the offense report. The Petitioner had complied with the verification requirements under Regulation 13 of CHALR 2004.

Suspension and Revocation of License:
The suspension of the CHA license was not made within 15 days from the date of receipt of the report from DRI, but was later revoked after a delay of one year. Subsequently, a notice was issued proposing to impose a penalty and forfeit the security, which was also challenged as being barred by limitation. The Respondents alleged that the Petitioner had not conducted business with due diligence and had violated the regulations, leading to the cancellation of the license.

Imposition of Penalty and Forfeiture of Security:
The Respondents argued that the cancellation of the license was justified due to the Petitioner's failure to comply with regulations and conduct business diligently. The Respondents sought the dismissal of the Writ Petition on these grounds.

Judicial Analysis and Decision:
The court considered the submissions from both parties and reviewed the material on record. Referring to a previous judgment, the court highlighted the impact of revoking a license on the livelihood of the licensee. Despite the allegations against the Petitioner, the court refrained from delving into the merits of the case due to the pending renewal application and the stay granted in another related Writ Petition. The court directed the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to continue business operations until the renewal application is decided, which should be done within six weeks from the date of the court's order.

Conclusion:
The court disposed of the Writ Petition with directions for the renewal application to be considered promptly. The court refrained from imposing costs and closed the related motions.