9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 1620 - AT - CustomsRevocation of CHA license - time limitation of SCN - Held that - It is pertinent to record that the offence took place in a different place from that of the Licensing Authority who is in Delhi. Inasmuch as the offence report contained in the alleged violation of CBLR was received by the Commissioner of Custom, IGI Airport, New Delhi only on 15.12.2016, the SCN which was issued on 20.08.2017 within time and cannot be held to be time barred. The role of the CHA in the Customs procedures is significant. The CHA is expected to safeguard the interest of exporter of the goods as well as the Customs - even though the appellant is guilty, the violations are not so grave as to justify the revocation of the custom licence - the ends of justice will be met with the forfeiture of security deposit of ₹ 75,000/- and in addition imposition of penalty of ₹ 50,000/-. Appeal allowed in part.
Issues:
1. Time limit for issuing show cause notice under CBLR. 2. Merits of revoking CHA license based on violation of regulations. Issue 1: Time limit for issuing show cause notice under CBLR The appellant challenged the revocation of their CHA license, arguing that the show cause notice issued after the detection of contraband was time-barred. The appellant contended that the notice was issued beyond the 90-day limit specified in the CBLR. The appellant's counsel highlighted a previous Tribunal order that set aside a penalty imposed on the appellant for a similar offense. The appellant argued that the violation was minor and did not warrant license revocation. In response, the AR justified the timing of the show cause notice, stating that the time limit starts from the date of the offense report, not the detection of contraband. The AR emphasized that the licensing authority acted within the specified time limit under the CBLR. The Tribunal noted that the time limit for issuing a show cause notice under the CBLR starts from the receipt of the offense report. Despite the detection of contraband in 2014, the licensing authority could only act upon receiving the offense report in 2016. As the notice was issued within the stipulated time frame, the Tribunal found it valid and proceeded to examine the merits of the case. Issue 2: Merits of revoking CHA license based on violation of regulations The appellant, a Customs House Agent (CHA), was involved in filing a shipping bill for exporting basmati rice, which was later found to contain contraband. The investigation revealed that the export of contraband was orchestrated by a third party impersonating the exporter. While the CHA had authorization for clearance work, they failed to verify the antecedents of the actual exporter and relied solely on forwarded documents. This negligence led to the attempted export of contraband along with non-basmati rice. The Tribunal acknowledged the CHA's significant role in Customs procedures and the violations of CBLR regulations. However, considering the circumstances, the Tribunal deemed the violations not severe enough to warrant license revocation. Instead, the Tribunal modified the impugned order, directing the forfeiture of the security deposit and imposing a penalty, finding this to be sufficient to serve the ends of justice. In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of adhering to regulations while balancing the severity of violations with appropriate penalties to ensure justice.
|
