2012 (6) TMI 345 - AT - Customs

Appellate Tribunal upholds revocation of Customs House Agent license for serious violations

The Appellate Tribunal upheld the revocation of the Customs House Agent (CHA) license of M/s. C.P. Mota & Co. for multiple violations of CHALR, 2004 ... Revocation of CHA licence - violation of provisions of CHALR, 2004 - sub-letting of licence - undertaking various transactions in violation of the CHALR provisions - Held that:- In the instant case, violation of Regulation 12 of CHALR, 2004 - sub-letting of licence - is clearly established since it is clear from the records that Dyaneshwar Bhoir was working independently and was using the licence of CHA for a consideration of ₹ 700/- per consignment. Further, violation of Regulation 13 (b) is proved as CHA firm had shown Dyaneshwar Bhoir as an employee and obtained a customs pass when, in fact, he was not an employee at all. Also, CHA had been blindly signing the customs documents brought in by Mr Bhoir, accordingly, violation of Regulation 13 (d) and (n) are also proved. Similarly the allegation that CHA did not know the importer at all in violation of Regulation 13 (a) is also proved. Therefore, order of revocation of license is upheld - Decided against the assessee. Issues: Revocation of CHA license due to violations of CHALR, 2004Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Violation of CHALR, 2004 RegulationsThe case involved charges against a Customs House Agent (CHA) for violations of CHALR, 2004 regulations. The appellant, M/s. C.P. Mota & Co., faced allegations of aiding smuggling by allowing unauthorized use of their CHA license. The Inquiry Officer found multiple violations, leading to the revocation of the license by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai under Regulation 22(7) of CHALR, 2004.Issue 2: Procedural Irregularities in the InquiryThe appellant argued that the Inquiry Officer did not follow proper procedures, denying them the opportunity for a fair defense. They claimed that prosecution witnesses were not produced, and cross-examination was not allowed. However, the appellant presented a defense witness to refute the charges, asserting that the individual in question was an employee and not involved in unauthorized activities.Issue 3: Sub-letting of CHA License and Regulatory ViolationsEvidence presented by the Revenue showed that the CHA had sub-let their license for monetary gain, contrary to CHALR, 2004 regulations. Statements recorded under the Customs Act confirmed the unauthorized use of the license and the payment of commissions. The appellant's attempt to show the individual as an employee was contradicted by witness statements and the terms of appointment, leading to the establishment of regulatory violations.Issue 4: Legal Precedents and Revocation of LicenseThe Revenue relied on legal precedents to support the revocation of the license, emphasizing that a single act of corruption, such as sub-letting a license, warrants severe penalties. Judgments from various High Courts reinforced the authority's decision to revoke the license based on the established violations of CHALR, 2004.Conclusion:The Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision to revoke the CHA license, citing the clear violations of CHALR, 2004 regulations and the precedents supporting such actions. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the revocation order by the adjudicating authority.