2019 (1) TMI 1448 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - time limit - contravention of provisions of Regulation 11(a), 11(d), 11(e) and 11(n) of the Custom Broker licensing Regulations, 2013 - Held that - The findings recorded by the Ld. Commissioner General are more or less the reiteration of the allegations, without any specific bills of entry handled by the appellants-CHA. Further, the appellant have obtained and maintained sufficient documents as regards the importers who approached them for clearance of their goods. The allegations of the Revenue are based on investigation and the statements of Mr. B.K. Goyal. Although Director of the appellant have also stated that the said importer were introduced to him through Shri B.K. Goyal, but it is not established that appellant handled the work of clearance with any malafide motive, or any motive to abnormal gain - there is no allegation of the appellant having made any abnormal profits in connivance with the said Mr. B.K. Goyal. The impugned order is bad in the absence of any offence report - the charges levelled against the appellant CHA are not maintainable - the license of the appellant CHA is restored - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues: Revocation of CHA license and forfeiture of security deposit

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order revoking the CHA license and forfeiting the security deposit of the appellant.
2. The case involved allegations of illegal import and smuggling of goods, specifically "Sony Bravia" LED TVs and Red Sanders Wood, managed by an individual named Sh. Bhimendra Kumar Goyal.
3. The investigation by the Directorate General of Investigation led to a show cause notice and subsequent Order-in-Original dated 28/04/2017 imposing penalties and confiscating goods.
4. The appellant was accused of contravening Custom Broker licensing Regulations, leading to the revocation of the CHA license and forfeiture of the security deposit.
5. The appellant challenged the order before the Tribunal, which initially allowed the appeal based on a procedural time limit but later re-called the order for a re-hearing on merits.
6. The appellant argued that the allegations were vague, lacked specific evidence, and no offense report was submitted against them by the Investigation Agency.
7. The Department maintained that the appellant failed to verify the genuineness of importers as required by regulations.
8. The Tribunal found that the Revenue's case relied on the Order-in-Original without specific evidence of wrongdoing by the appellant.
9. It was concluded that the charges against the appellant were not sustainable, and the impugned order was set aside, directing the restoration of the CHA license within three weeks.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of revocation of the CHA license and forfeiture of the security deposit, outlining the legal proceedings, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision based on the evidence and regulations involved in the case.

← Previous Next →