TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Customs House Agent license revocation overturned due to lack of evidence</h1> <h3>HAZARATH AGENCIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COIMBATORE</h3> HAZARATH AGENCIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COIMBATORE - 2007 (216) E.L.T. 554 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues:Revocation of Customs House Agent (CHA) license under Regulation 21 of CHALR, 1984 without following prescribed procedure under Regulation 23.Analysis:The appellant, a Customs House Agent, had their license revoked by the Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore under Regulation 21 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations (CHALR), 1984. The revocation was based on allegations of misdeclaration and over-valuation in three drawback Shipping Bills filed by the appellant on behalf of a client. The Commissioner issued a show cause notice (SCN) under Regulation 21, alleging violations of CHALR, 1984, which the appellant denied. The Commissioner subsequently revoked the license with immediate effect, leading to the appeal.One of the key allegations against the CHA in the SCN was allowing unauthorized persons to transact 'customs business,' contrary to Regulation 14(b) and Regulation 20 of CHALR, 1984. The CHA explained in their reply that the unauthorized person was appointed without their knowledge, and they took immediate action upon discovering the misconduct. The CHA argued that they were not liable for the actions of their employee and emphasized the exporter's responsibility for accurate declarations in Shipping Bills.The Tribunal analyzed the relevant provisions of CHALR, 1984 and found that the CHA's authorized signatory, holding a valid 'G' card, filed the Shipping Bills. The allegation of unauthorized persons transacting business on behalf of the CHA was not substantiated, as there was no evidence that the CHA had approved such individuals. Additionally, the allegation regarding misdeclaration by the CHA under Regulation 14(e) was deemed unfounded, as the exporter was responsible for providing accurate information.Referring to precedent cases, the Tribunal highlighted instances where revocation of CHA licenses was set aside due to lack of evidence linking the CHA to fraudulent activities or failure to exercise due diligence. The Tribunal also noted that the Commissioner failed to follow the prescribed procedure under Regulation 23 before revoking the CHA license, rendering the decision unsustainable in law.Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order, allowing the appeal and restoring the CHA's license. The decision emphasized the importance of following procedural requirements and ensuring evidence-based allegations before revoking licenses under CHALR, 1984.
TaxTMI 