9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice was issued against him under Customs Act for contraventions of provisions of the Customs Act. This being the facts of the case, there is no justification for extreme penal action of revocation of licence. In this regard, we find that the Tribunal in the case of K.S. Sawant & Co. Vs CC Mumbai [2013 (12) TMI 119 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] held that a punishment to CHA should be commensurate with gravity of the offence and held that punishment of revocation of licence should be invoked as a extreme and harsh measure. - revocation of licence or any punishment on the CHA should be commensurate with gravity of the offence whereas the adjudicating authority ordered for revocation of CHA licence and forfeiture of deposit which appears to be very har ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion was continued vide order dt. 8.9.2001. After completing the enquiry, SCN was issued on 2.7.2013 and after following the principles of natural justice, the adjudicating authority in the impugned order ordered for revocation of licence of customs broker, M/s.Unique Line (appellant) and also forfeiture of security deposit made by the customer broker. Hence the present appeal. 3. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that they have filed Bill of Entry on behalf of the importer M/s.Odyssey Impex for import of 'woven dyed fabrics'. The importer was arrested on the ground that imported goods attract Anti Dumping Duty as per the Textile Committee Report. As per the High Court s order the goods were ordered for re-test a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 (221) ELT 252 (Tri.-Mum.) (2) Setwin Shipping Agency Vs CC Mumbai 2010 (250)ELT 141 (Tri.-Mum.) (3) K.S.Sawant Co. Vs CC Mumbai 2012 (284) ELT 363 (Tri.-Mum.) (4) Global Linkerz United Agencies Vs CC 2009 (239) ELT 76 (Tri.-Del.) (5) Ashiana Cargo Services Vs CC (I G) 2014 (302) ELT 161 (Del.) (6) High Court s unreported order dt 12.7.2015 in the case of CC Vs A.M.Ahmed Co. 4. On the other hand, LD. A.R reiterated the findings of the order and also SCN. Appellants have violated and the grounds for suspension and revocation of licence have been clearly brought out by the adjudicating authority on four grounds that (i) he has not obtained authorization from the importer to file the Bill of Entry and did not know the ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so for misdeclaration of the description there was no allegation in the SCN on any ADD. We find that there was no proceedings dropped by the adjudicating authority on the importer as claimed by the appellant. We find that the goods were confiscated, value was enhanced and fine and penalty were imposed on the importer. The goods classified as 100% Ramie woven fabric and also rejected the declared value from USD 0.5 per meter (CIF) and enhanced to USD 1.2564 per meter (CIF) and the goods were confiscated and allowed on imposition of redemption fine of ₹ 10,000/- and penalty of ₹ 5000/-. Therefore, the appellant s contention that entire proceedings have been dropped against the importer is not correct. Further, we find that as pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of Customs v. Chhaganlal Mohanlal Co. Ltd. [2006 (203) E.L.T. 435 (Tri. - Mum.)], held that if the Customs clearance has been done through intermediary and business was got through intermediary, the same is not barred by the provisions of CHALR, 2004 and it cannot be stated that the appellant has sub-let or transferred his licence. In the case of Krishan Kumar Sharma v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 581 (Tri.), this Tribunal held that the mere fact of bills raised on the intermediary cannot be held against the CHA firm to prove that the CHA licence was sub-let or transferred. Therefore, in the light of the judgments cited above, the charge of violation of Regulation 12 is not established. As regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is an extreme step and a harsh punishment, which is not warranted for violation of Regulation 13(b). Accordingly, we are of the view that forfeiture of security tendered by the appellant CHA is sufficient punishment and revocation is not warranted. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the revocation and direct the Commissioner of Customs (General) to restore the CHA licence subject to the forfeiture of entire security amount tendered by the CHA. 6. The Tribunal s decision (supra) is squarely applicable to this case. Accordingly, we are of the view that revocation of licence or any punishment on the CHA should be commensurate with gravity of the offence whereas the adjudicating authority ordered for revocation of CHA licence and forfe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
