9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CHA licence for the purpose of processing export documents relating to a few consignments of one M/s. Megha Apparels Inc. Those consignments had been declared as ready-made garments in the relevant Shipping Bills filed under claim for duty-drawback, under the DEEC Scheme. The Customs authorities subsequently detected misdeclaration and booked a case against the exporter. Investigations in that case brought to light the role of the present appellant, who lent his signature as CHA to third parties (who had no CHA licence of their own) for the purpose of processing the above export documents. Consequently, a case was booked against the present appellant as well. The appellant's CHA licence was suspended by the Commissioner of Customs on 5-6-19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has been deposited by him. In the light of these facts and circumstances, the order of revocation of the licence should be terminated. A few decisions of this Tribunal have been cited in support of this prayer :- (i) C.J. Joshi and Sons v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla reported in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 900 (Tri.). (ii) Lohia Travel & Cargo v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi reported in 2001 (129) E.L.T. 668. (iii) Trans Shipping Service v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported in 2004 (163) E.L.T. 484 (Tri.-Mumbai). 4. Ld. SDR has resisted the plea for lenient view. She has pointed out that the appellant was penalised for similar offence earlier and the repeat offen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been held by the Apex Court that statutory Tribunals do have discretion which, however, should be exercised in accordance with sound judicial principles. Therefore, with great respect to the WZB, we are of the considered view that, in sound exercise of discretion, this Tribunal can take an appropriate view in a case involving revocation of CHA licence, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, admittedly, the licence was suspended as early as in 1998 and was revoked in September, 2000. Apparently, the appellant has suffered enough on account of the orders of the Commissioner. The appellant has gone without CHA business as a means of livelihood ever since 1998. Nearly 6 years have elapsed. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
