9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce. 2 The facts are simple. The Customs House Agent respondent before this Court held a licence bearing No.11/896. That came to be revoked by the Commissioner of Customs (General) on 28th February, 2013. The charges which, are held to be proved pertain to the violation of Regulation 12, 13(a), 13(d) and 19(8) of the Customs House Agents Licence Regulation, 2004. 3 In the submission of Mr. Jetly, the Tribunal Members were divided in their opinion. One Member (Judicial) held that the charges have not been proved. Therefore, the Commissioner's order deserves to be quashed and set aside in toto. The Member (Technical) disagreed with him. He held that the charges are proved. That is why the matter was referred to the third Member. As far a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e records, whereas he has none. The revenue did not cooperate and a adverse inference is drawn. As far as the third charge is concerned, it is a consequence of the second charge of violation of regulation 13(a). The regulation that was violated and breached illegally was regulation 19(8). That envisages full control of the Customs House Agent. These being the nature of charges, the Member (Judicial) found that there was no clinching evidence so as to hold the Customs House Agent guilty. He had full control over the licence. 7 The Member (Technical) did not agree with the Member (Judicial) and held all the charges are proved. Consequently, he upheld the revocation of licence and confirmed the penalty imposed. As far as the third Member is c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vention of regulation 19(8). Thus, the third Member has agreed with the Member (Judicial) on substantive findings. As far as the technical breach and violations are concerned, he has agreed with the Member (Technical). 11 To our mind, the conclusion that the revocation of licence of two years was sufficient punishment is a possible and probable conclusion and that emerges from the record itself. In the circumstances, such conclusion cannot be termed as perverse. 12 In other words, though there was a difference of opinion, but the majority view is that there is a technical breach or violation, then, this Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. We cannot re-appreciate the factual findings and come to a different conclusion. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
