2014 (1) TMI 1672 - AT - Customs

Tribunal upholds revocation of CHA license and forfeiture of security deposit in compliance breach case

ASIAN FREIGHT FORWARDERS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS. (GENERAL), MUMBAI

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal challenging the revocation of the CHA license and forfeiture of the security deposit of M/s. Asian Freight Forwarders. ... Revocation of CHA license – Contravention of Regulation 13 – Vide impugned order adjudicating authority revoked CHA licence of appellant and ordered forfeiture of entire amount of security deposit made by appellant – Commissioner held that charges imputed against CHA stood proved and, therefore, revocation is justified – Held that:- Admittedly appellant being CHA failed to discharge his duties thereby contravening Regulation 13 – During enquiry partner of appellant-firm admitted to all charges imputed against his firm – Thus, from records it is seen that charges stood admitted – Settled position in law that admitted charges need not be proved – High Court of Bombay in case of Worldwide Cargo Movers [2006 (11) TMI 281 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that if principles of natural justice are followed and findings are justified from material on record contravention of Regulation 13 is valid reason for revoking CHA license – No merit found in appeal and is accordingly dismissed – Decided against Assesse. Issues:Revocation of CHA license and forfeiture of security deposit based on contraventions of CHALR and CBLR regulations.Analysis:The appeal challenged the revocation of the CHA license of M/s. Asian Freight Forwarders and the forfeiture of their security deposit by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai. The charges against the CHA included contraventions of various regulations such as failing to obtain authorization before cargo clearance, not advising the client on Customs Act compliance, not discharging duties efficiently, and failing to verify client information. The appellant disputed the findings and severity of the punishment, arguing that precautions were taken and the revocation was unwarranted. The appellant also referenced a previous court decision to support their case.The appellant's counsel contended that the punishment of revocation was disproportionate to the alleged contraventions. However, the Revenue's representative argued that the charges were admitted by the appellant during the enquiry, eliminating the need for further evidence. The Revenue relied on previous court decisions upholding revocation in similar cases to support their stance. The Revenue urged that the impugned order was legally sound and should be upheld.The Tribunal examined the charges against the appellant, noting that all charges were admitted during the enquiry by the partner of the CHA firm. The Tribunal emphasized that admitted charges do not require further proof. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that they did not contravene the regulations. The Tribunal distinguished the previous court decision cited by the appellant, stating it was not applicable to the current case. Additionally, the Tribunal referenced other court decisions supporting revocation in cases of similar contraventions.In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it. The Tribunal based its decision on the admitted charges and the applicability of previous court decisions to the current case. The revocation of the CHA license and forfeiture of the security deposit were upheld based on the contraventions of CHALR and CBLR regulations.