Tribunal Sets Aside CHA License Revocation & Forfeiture Decision Due to Procedural Non-Compliance

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in a case involving the revocation of a CHA license and forfeiture of a security deposit. The appellant successfully argued that they were not directly involved in the contravention of Customs Act provisions and that the allegations stemmed from the actions of an employee without a clear link to the appellant. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the procedural time limits were not adhered to as required by regulations, leading to the impugned order being set aside on both substantive and procedural grounds.

---

---

Issues:
Revocation of CHA license and forfeiture of security deposit.

Analysis:
The appellant, holding a CHA license, appealed against the revocation of their license and forfeiture of security deposit by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi. The case originated from an investigation into illicit import of cigarettes by M&P Wing of Mumbai customs in December 2011. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant under CHA License Regulation 2004. The Commissioner, Customs, New Delhi suspended the CHA License of the appellant on 29.11.2012, which was later revoked on 07.01.2014. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued proposing revocation of the license and forfeiture of the security deposit. The appellant contested the order on both merits and the question of time bar under Regulation 20 of CB Licensing Regulations, 2013.

On the merits, the appellant argued that they were not involved in any contravention of Customs Act provisions. The allegations against them were based on the actions of an employee in Mumbai, and there was no direct link between the appellant and the attempted smuggling of cigarettes by another entity. The appellant's responsibility for verifying importers' backgrounds was also questioned, as it was unclear which consignments violated customs provisions and lacked proper KYC norms. The appellant's employee, a customs G card holder, was authorized to transact with customs on behalf of the appellant. The Tribunal found no justification for the license revocation based on the facts presented in the impugned order.

Moreover, the Tribunal noted that the time limits prescribed under Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation 2013 were not adhered to in this case. The show cause notice was issued more than 90 days after the offence report, and the enquiry report was filed over 10 months after the notice, contravening the statutory time limit. Citing previous judgments, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of strict adherence to the prescribed time limits. Based on this analysis, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order on both merit and procedural grounds, ultimately allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the revocation of the CHA license and forfeiture of the security deposit were not justified on both substantive and procedural grounds. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

---