9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Customs (General) rejecting the application of the petitioner for renewal of the CHA licence. Tribunal held that- for first ground-In our view, giving of the visiting card to respondent no. 2 was even assuming if amounted to misconduct was too insignificant a thing warranting cancellation of the licence or its refusal of its renewal. For second ground- the order imposing the fine of Rs.15 lakhs on Mr. Unnikrishnan by the adjudicating authority on which reliance has been placed in the impugned orders was set aside by the CESTAT by its decision rendered in Commissioner of Customs v. R.K. Tommer and other connected matters reported in Special leave petition filed has been filed against the order of the CESTAT. By the SLP the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isiting card. We adjourned the matter for a day to enable the respondent to inform us whether there was any record of previous misconduct, misdemeanour, or any adverse entry in the last more than 20 years during which the petitioner was carrying on the business as CHS licencee. Today, the learned counsel for the respondent informed us that there was no record of any past misconduct or misdemeanour or adverse remark in the case of the petitioner. We have heard the counsel again today and are of the view that the impugned orders need to be set aside for the reasons set out hereunder. 4. The petitioner is carrying on business and acting as licenced Customs House Agent (CHA) in pursuance of CHA licence no. 11/483 dated 5th August 1983. For a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation of the licence and by an order dated 20th May 2009 revoked the licence of the petitioner and with effect from the date which it was renewed. That order is also impugned by the petitioner by this petition. 5. We have perused the impugned orders. Firstly, the respondent no. 2 has held that even after the CHA licence of the petitioner had come to an end on account of non renewal, petitioner was falsely representing to be a CHA agent. Secondly, respondent relied upon the statements of Mr. C.R. Unnikrishnan, partner of the petitioner firm recorded u/s. 108 of the Customs Act 1962 and came to the conclusion that the misconduct of Mr. Unnikrishnan was proved on the basis of the said statement. He further relied upon the fact that penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the second ground, it may be noted that the statement allegedly recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act was retracted by Mr. Unnikrishnan. Furthermore, the order imposing the fine of Rs.15 lakhs on Mr. Unnikrishnan by the adjudicating authority on which reliance has been placed in the impugned orders was set aside by the CESTAT by its decision rendered in Commissioner of Customs v. R.K. Tommer and other connected matters reported in 2008 (228) E.L.T. 232. Mr. Unnikrishnan was exonerated of all charges against by the CESTAT. In our opinion, therefore, the Commissioner erred in relying upon the order of the adjudicating authority which had been set aside and has ceased to exist by reason of the order of the CESTAT. 8. Learned co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
