2018 (11) TMI 533 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - breach of various provision of regulation 14 - absence of any statutory provision for limited revocation of a license - Held that - It is the authority competent to issue the license that bears administrative responsibility for the jurisdiction in which the licensee is allowed to operate; the issue of a license, extension of such licences and revocation thereof are expressly provided for in the said Regulations. Whether there are any restrictions on receiving of a fresh licence is not apparent but the Regulations certainly do not provide for partial revocation and does not envisage a rollback except in circumstances of the original revocation being invalidated. The operation and control of Customs House Agents are best left to the judgement of Commissioner of Customs and that no intervention in the magnitude of penalty, save in obvious cases of being disproportionate or for violation of principles of natural justice and breach of procedure as prescribed in law is warranted - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Revocation of license issued to M/s Vishwanath Shipping Agency Pvt Ltd under Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 and forfeiture of security deposit.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the revocation of the license and forfeiture of security deposit following the detection of irregularities in handling a shipment of goods. The charges against the licensee included breaching various regulations such as operating through an unauthorized person, filing improper documentation, and allowing subletting of the license.

2. The appellant's counsel argued for leniency citing previous cases where restoration of licenses was allowed after a certain period. However, the tribunal found that the circumstances of the present case differed from those cited, as all charges against the licensee were proven in the statutory inquiry.

3. The tribunal highlighted the absence of statutory provision for limited revocation of a license and emphasized the importance of upholding regulations to maintain the integrity of licensing authorities. The tribunal noted that leniency in this case could undermine the authority of the licensing body and set a precedent for casual compliance by other licensees.

4. The tribunal agreed with the Authorized Representative that Customs House Agents' operations should be under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs. Interventions in penalties should only occur in cases of disproportionality or violation of natural justice principles. Previous court decisions were cited to support the tribunal's decision not to interfere with the revocation and forfeiture order.

5. The tribunal dismissed the appeal after considering the detailed findings in the impugned order, the lack of rebuttal from the appellant, and the legal principles outlined in previous judgments. The decision to revoke the license and forfeit the security deposit was upheld based on the proven charges and the need to uphold regulatory standards.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a thorough understanding of the issues involved and the tribunal's reasoning behind the decision to dismiss the appeal against the revocation of the license and forfeiture of the security deposit.