2014 (1) TMI 1069 - AT - Customs

Customs House Agent License Revocation Overturned for Lack of Evidence and Proper Authorization

DOMINIC & CO. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (G), MUMBAI

The Tribunal set aside the revocation of the Customs House Agent (CHA) license and forfeiture of the security deposit. The appellant successfully argued ... Revocation of CHA License - Forfeiture of entire amount of security deposit - Misdeclaration of goods - Held that:- M/s. Raju Doshi (HUF) is a IEC holder who let the IEC to Shri Abdul Rahim, importer for importation of the goods. But in the invoice as well as import documents, M/s. Raju Doshi (HUF) is shown as the importer and from the importer M/s. Raju Doshi (HUF) the appellant has obtained proper authorisation as required under Regulation 13(a) of the CHALR, 2004. As held by the Tribunal in P.P. Dutta (2001 (9) TMI 148 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI) that at the time of clearance if the authorisation is not asked by the customs officer and bills of entry has been duly signed by the appellant same is implied that the appellant has obtained authorisation from the importer. Therefore we hold that the charge levelled against the appellant under Regulation 13(a) stands not proved. With regard to charge under Regulation 13(d), we find that no discrepancy was found by the authorities in the documents filed by the appellant therefore question of advice does not arise and description shown in the bill of entry matches with the documents like invoice, packing list, when there is no discrepancy then it is not required for the appellant to bring it to the customs authorities. Further, in this case, only at the time of examination it was found that some fire works apart from the goods in the bill of entry which is not proved by the authorities was in the knowledge of the appellant. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence on record that appellant was having knowledge of misdeclaration, charge under Regulation 13(d) also stands ‘not proved’ - Decided in favour of appellant. Issues:Revocation of CHA licence and forfeiture of security deposit based on charges of misdeclaration and violation of regulations.Analysis:The appellant, a Customs House Agent (CHA), appealed against the revocation of their CHA licence and forfeiture of the security deposit due to alleged misdeclaration of imported goods. The case originated from information received by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) regarding an importer declaring goods as plastic and glass items, but fireworks were also found during examination. The appellant cleared the consignment, leading to the suspension and subsequent revocation of their CHA licence. The appellant argued that charges under Regulation 13(n) and 12 were not sustainable as the Commissioner did not notify disagreement with the enquiry officer's report, citing the Delta Logistics case. They also contended that they had proper authorization from the importer for the goods declared under Regulation 13(a). The appellant further claimed that since the authorization was not requested by customs authorities during clearance, the charges were not valid, referencing the P.P. Dutta case. Additionally, they argued that no discrepancies were found in the documents filed, making the charges under Regulation 13(d) baseless, as per the K.S. Sawant & Co. case.On the contrary, the Revenue strongly opposed the appellant's arguments, stating that misdeclaration occurred, and no authorization was produced during clearance. They argued that the appellant's claim of post-importation authorization was an afterthought, and the appellant failed to advise the importer properly, leading to violations under Regulation 13(d). The Revenue also highlighted that since the appellant was an intermediary and not directly dealing with the importer, charges under Regulation 12 were valid. They further contended that the appellant's association with an intermediary who dealt with the importer validated the charges under Regulation 13(n), resulting in the CHA licence revocation.After hearing both sides, the Tribunal analyzed the case. They found that the appellant had obtained proper authorization from the importer, as required under Regulation 13(a), and the charges under Regulation 13(a) were not proven. Regarding the charges under Regulation 13(d), the Tribunal noted that no discrepancies were found in the documents filed by the appellant, and since the fireworks were only discovered during examination without evidence of the appellant's knowledge, the charges were not substantiated. The Tribunal ruled that charges under Regulations 12 and 13(n) were also not proven, as the Commissioner failed to notify the appellant of disagreement with the Inquiry Officer's report, following the Delta Logistics case. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.