2015 (3) TMI 1075 - AT - Customs

Tribunal reinstates revoked CHA license, citing appellant's business hiatus as key; challenge against penalties successful.

The tribunal set aside the order revoking the CHA license, making it operational immediately, after considering the appellant's 3.5-year business hiatus ... Revocation of CHA License - Mis-declaration of goods - violation of regulation 13(b), (d), (e) and 19(8) of the CHAL Regulations, 2004 - Penalty u/s 117 - Held that:- There were some lapses on the part of the appellant and for that appellant is liable to be penalized. But we find that appellant has already suffered more than 3.5 years and is not in business since 13.10.2011. Therefore, punishment suffered by the appellant is sufficient in the facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, impugned order is modified to the extent that order of revocation of CHA License No. 02/CHALR/2004 dated 11.02.2004 is set aside. - With these terms the CHA license of the appellant becomes operative with immediate effect - Decided in favour of appellant. Issues:Appeal against revocation of CHA license, forfeiture of security deposit, and penalty under CHALR, 2004.Analysis:The appellant challenged the order revoking their CHA license, forfeiting the security deposit, and imposing a penalty under CHALR, 2004. The case originated from the stuffing of a container at ICD RAJSICO, Jodhpur, where used goods were found instead of declared handicraft goods. The appellant's employee was present during the stuffing. Proceedings under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004 were initiated, alleging violations of various regulations. The CHA license was suspended and later revoked, with a penalty imposed. The appellant contended that they were not aware of the mis-declaration and pointed to a Customs Act discharge order absolving them of mens rea. They argued that being out of business for over 3.5 years was a sufficient punishment. The respondent supported the impugned order, emphasizing the appellant's lack of supervision over their employees and the proven violations. After hearing both parties, the tribunal acknowledged the lapses but considered the appellant's 3.5-year business hiatus as significant punishment. Consequently, the order revoking the CHA license was set aside, making the license operational immediately. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.