2016 (7) TMI 1059 - HC - Customs

Tribunal granted Relief to CHA - allegation of abetting duty evasion - Charges under Regulation 13(d), (e), (i) & (n) of CHALR, 2004 - Revokation of CHA licence - held that - We find that once the respondents were not guilty of aiding and abetting the importers, then, the importers acts may amount to evasion of customs duty, but those can be proceeded independently. As far as the respondents/Agents are concerned, they have not been held to be guilty and of conniving and that of colluding with these importers. Therefore, all that they were pronounced guilty for is some lack of care or supervision. For that the Tribunal 2016 (3) TMI 217 - CESTAT MUMBAI has brought down the period of revocation. It has maintained the forfeiture, but to the extent indicated in para 8 of the impugned order. It is not the contention of the Revenue that the Tribunal was not empowered to do so in law. - Once that is not demonstrated to be perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record, then, the appeal cannot be entertained. It is dismissed. - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
Revenue's appeal challenging Tribunal's order, Allegations against respondents for assisting importers in defrauding Revenue, Tribunal's findings on charges under Regulation 13(d) and 13(e) of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, Tribunal's decision on lack of guilt of respondents, Tribunal's power to reduce the period of revocation and maintain forfeiture.

Analysis:

1. Revenue's appeal challenging Tribunal's order:
The High Court was presented with the Revenue's appeal against the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order. The Tribunal had partially allowed the respondents' appeal, prompting the Revenue to raise substantial questions of law framed by them.

2. Allegations against respondents for assisting importers in defrauding Revenue:
The Revenue contended that the respondents, acting as Customs House Agents, were involved in aiding importers to defraud the Revenue by winning over officials' trust. It was argued that the respondents' actions were intentional and deliberate, indicating lack of due care and negligence.

3. Tribunal's findings on charges under Regulation 13(d) and 13(e) of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004:
The Tribunal, after evaluating oral and documentary evidence, concluded that the charges against the respondents under Regulation 13(d) and 13(e) were not proven. The Tribunal provided detailed reasons for this decision, as highlighted in specific paragraphs of their order.

4. Tribunal's decision on lack of guilt of respondents:
Since the Tribunal did not find the respondents guilty of aiding and abetting importers, the High Court emphasized that the importers' actions could be addressed separately as evasion of customs duty. The Tribunal held the respondents responsible for lack of care or supervision, leading to a reduced period of revocation and maintaining forfeiture to a specified extent.

5. Tribunal's power to reduce the period of revocation and maintain forfeiture:
The High Court clarified that the Tribunal had the authority to make decisions regarding the period of revocation and forfeiture. While the Revenue argued against these actions, the Court stated that unless a finding of fact is shown to be perverse or legally flawed, the appeal cannot be entertained. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, leading to the disposal of the related Notice of Motion.

This detailed analysis of the High Court's judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved, the arguments presented, and the ultimate decision rendered in the case.