9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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. - APPEAL NO: C/1161/2008 - A/87851/2018 - Dated:- 6-11-2018 - Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) And Shri Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial) Shri HR Shetty, Advocate for appellant Ms PV Sekhar, Joint Commissioner (AR) for respondent ORDER Per: C J Mathew This appeal has been pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r leniency and on ground of equity by drawing upon certain decisions that allowed the restoration of license after a reasonable interval and set aside the extreme penalty for not being commensurate with alleged breach. In SP Pawar Sons v. Commissioner of Customs (Gen), Mumbai-I [2009 (247) ELT 562 (Tri-Mum)], the Tribunal took note that two of the three charges remained unproven and that the lone charge held as proved was merely technical for which the penalty of forfeiture would be commensurate; Hon ble High Court of Bombay did find this decision of the Tribunal to be proper. In Commissioner of Customs (General) v. SS Clearing Forwarding Pvt Ltd [2011 (263) ELT 353 (Bom)], the penalty of forfeiture was considered sufficient in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstrained by the absence of any statutory provision for limited revocation of a license. 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. 5. It is also seen that the facts in decisions cited by Learned Counsel are not mirrored here wherein all the five charg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sight of the fact that the appellant-Commissioner of Customs is responsible for happenings in the Customs area and for the discipline to be maintained over there. If he takes a decision necessary for that purpose, the Tribunal is not expected to interfere on the basis of its own notions of the difficulties likely to be faced by the CHA or his employees. The decision is best to be left to the disciplinary authority save in exceptional cases where it is shockingly disproportionate or mala fide. That is not the case here. 29. In the circumstances, we allow Customs Appeal No. 37 of 2006 filed by the appellant-Commissioner of Customs since the CESTAT was not justified in setting aside the revocation of the CHA licence in the facts and ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry report which formed the plinth of the order of the Commissioner demonstrates that by virtue of the transfer of the licence in contravention of the Regulations, on many an occasion, immense financial loss has been caused to the revenue. As the factual matrix would exposit, it is a serious violation. The misconduct reflects a chain of acts. In such a situation, we are disposed to think that the discretion exercised by the Tribunal is inappropriate. 15. In this regard, Ms. Mohana, learned senior counsel for the appellant, has placed reliance on the decision in Noble Agency v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2002 (142) E.L.T. 84 (Tri. - Mumbai)] wherein a Division Bench of the CEGAT, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai has observed :- The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
