2006 (3) TMI 508 - AT - Customs

Tribunal reinstates CHA license due to unjustified revocation over illegal cancellation of Bill of Entry.

SAI SHIPPING AGENCIES Versus COMMR. OF CUS. (PORT-IMPORT), CHENNAI

SAI SHIPPING AGENCIES Versus COMMR. OF CUS. (PORT-IMPORT), CHENNAI - 2006 (202) E.L.T. 467 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues:Revocation of CHA license by Commissioner of Customs, Change in facts and circumstances of the case, Inquiry proceedings under Regulation 23, Allegations of acting unauthorisedly, Cancellation of Bill of Entry without authority of law, Collusion with importer to evade Customs duty.Revocation of CHA License:The appeal challenges the revocation of a Customs House Agent (CHA) license by the Commissioner of Customs, following an inquiry under Regulation 23. The Tribunal had previously set aside the suspension of the license but allowed for further inquiry proceedings. The Commissioner's decision was based on new evidence, including a statement by the Managing Partner of the CHA-firm, indicating a change in the nature of transactions with an importer. The Tribunal examined this new evidence and an affidavit from the Commissioner of Customs, finding that the revocation was based on the illegal cancellation of a Bill of Entry, enabling the importer to benefit from a concessional duty rate.Change in Facts and Circumstances:The Tribunal analyzed the statement of the Managing Partner and the new evidence presented, which revealed a shift in the CHA's role from an employee to a principal in transactions with the importer. The affidavit from the Commissioner of Customs highlighted the unauthorized cancellation of a Bill of Entry, allowing the importer to exploit a concessional duty rate. The Tribunal noted that the actions of the CHA were not collusive but stemmed from the improper cancellation of the Bill of Entry by a Customs officer, who was under disciplinary proceedings.Allegations of Acting Unauthorisedly:The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides regarding the earlier findings and the new evidence. While the Commissioner argued that the CHA acted unauthorisedly, the Tribunal found that the revocation was unjustified as it was based on the illegal cancellation of the Bill of Entry. The Tribunal emphasized that the CHA's actions were not aimed at evading Customs duty but were a consequence of the improper cancellation and subsequent filing of a new Bill of Entry by the importer.Cancellation of Bill of Entry without Authority of Law:The Tribunal scrutinized the circumstances surrounding the cancellation of the Bill of Entry and the subsequent filing of a new one to benefit from a concessional duty rate. It was revealed that the cancellation was not in accordance with the law, as there was no provision for canceling a Bill of Entry at that time. The Tribunal highlighted the role of the Customs officer in allowing the unauthorized cancellation, leading to the importer's advantage and subsequent disciplinary proceedings against the officer.Collusion with Importer to Evade Customs Duty:The Tribunal dismissed the allegation of collusion between the CHA and the importer to evade Customs duty, attributing the issue to the improper cancellation of the Bill of Entry by the Customs officer. The Tribunal commended the Commissioner's commitment to taking action against the responsible officer. Ultimately, the Tribunal found the revocation of the CHA license to be unsustainable based on the facts and evidence presented, setting aside the Commissioner's order and allowing the appeal.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the Tribunal's assessment of the evidence and submissions, and the ultimate decision to overturn the revocation of the CHA license.