2016 (4) TMI 489 - AT - Customs

Revokation of CHA licence - Involvement of appellant CHA in the case of Fraudulent availment of Drawback on exporters in the name of IEC which were obtained on the basis of fictitious addresses at and in the name of non-existent person - Appellant charged under regulation 13 (a), 13(e) & 13(n) of CHALR, 2004 - Held that - by applying the decision of Tribunal in the case of Baraskar Brothers Versus CC 2012 (6) TMI 466 - CESTAT, Mumbai , the impugned order is unsustainable. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief

Summary

Issues:
- Allegations of fraudulent availment of Drawback on exporters by a Customs House Agent (CHA)
- Revocation of CHA license based on charges under CHALR, 2004
- Defense by the appellant regarding due diligence and compliance with regulations
- Comparison with similar cases and relevant case laws
- Interpretation of regulations 13(a), 13(e), and 13(n) in the context of the appellant's actions
- Consideration of past judgments and consistency in decision-making by the authorities

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations of Fraudulent Drawback Availment:
The appeal was against the revocation of the CHA license due to involvement in fraudulent activities related to the availment of Drawback on exporters. The appellant's license was suspended based on charges of fraudulent practices in obtaining Drawback against shipping bills.

2. Revocation of CHA License:
The adjudicating authority revoked the CHA license after finding the charges under regulations 13(a), 13(e), and 13(n) of CHALR, 2004 to be proved. The appellant challenged the revocation, claiming compliance with legal provisions and arguing against the discriminatory and arbitrary nature of the order.

3. Defense and Compliance:
The appellant argued that they had exercised due diligence in verifying the genuineness of exporters and had acted in good faith based on information provided by regular freight forwarders. They contended that the revocation was unjustified, especially considering the time lapse between the alleged instance and the order.

4. Comparison with Similar Cases and Case Laws:
The appellant cited precedents where similar charges against CHAs were set aside, emphasizing the need for consistency in decision-making. The tribunal analyzed past judgments to determine the applicability of those decisions to the current case.

5. Interpretation of Regulations:
The tribunal examined the specific articles of charges against the appellant, focusing on regulations 13(a), 13(e), and 13(n). The defense presented by the appellant regarding their compliance with these regulations was carefully evaluated against the findings of the lower authorities.

6. Consistency in Decision-Making:
The tribunal noted inconsistencies in the treatment of similar cases by the Commissioner of Customs, highlighting the importance of maintaining consistency in administrative actions. The tribunal ultimately set aside the impugned order, following the precedent set in the case of Baraskar Brothers.

7. Conclusion:
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal found the decision in the case of Baraskar Brothers to be directly applicable. No evidence was presented to overturn the previous judgment, leading to the setting aside of the revocation of the CHA license in this case.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the thorough examination of the allegations, defenses, legal provisions, precedents, and consistency in decision-making that formed the basis of the tribunal's decision to allow the appeal and set aside the revocation of the CHA license.