Customs House Agent's Liability Determination Upheld, License Revocation Order Quashed

The Tribunal found that the actions of the individual working under the Customs House Agent's license fulfilled the Agent's obligations under the regulations. As the individual was a 'G' card holder, it was determined that there was no violation by the Agent. Consequently, the order revoking the license and forfeiting the security deposit was quashed, providing relief to the appellant CHA. The impugned Order-in-Original revoking the license was set aside, with consequential relief in favor of the appellant pronounced in open court on 18.12.2019.

---

---

Issues: Appeal against revocation of Customs House Agent license and forfeiture of security deposit under Regulation 20(1) of CHALR, 2004 (now Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2013).

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Original revoking the license and forfeiting the security deposit of the Customs House Agent (CHA). The Tribunal initially set aside the license revocation but upheld the security deposit forfeiture. The High Court later directed a re-hearing of the appeal on merit, setting aside the previous Tribunal order. The current appeal was heard on its merits.

2. The appellant's advocate argued that the alleged violations were based on the unauthorized work of a third party, Sri Weling, whom the CHA allegedly allowed to work on their license. The advocate presented evidence from Weling's cross-examination, showing he was an employee of M/s. JD Impex and had the necessary documents. The advocate contended that since Weling was a 'G' card holder of the CHA, there was no violation of the regulations.

3. The respondent, representing Customs authority, argued that Weling, using the CHA's license for import clearance, violated regulations as the CHA had no knowledge of the actual importer or its documents, leading to attempted smuggling. The respondent supported the Adjudicating authority's findings.

4. During the proceedings, documents were produced verifying Weling's 'G' card status. The Customs record confirmed Weling's 'G' card holder status for M/s. JD Impex. The respondent did not dispute the verification letter produced by the appellant.

5. After considering all evidence and arguments, the Tribunal examined whether Weling was a 'G' card holder of the CHA and if his actions fulfilled the CHA's obligations under the regulations.

6. The Tribunal found that Weling was a 'G' card holder and handled the import consignment, communicating with the importer. According to Regulation 17 of CBLR, 2013, a Customs Broker can appoint employees after approval, and the broker is responsible for their acts. Weling's compliance with obligations under Regulation 11 was deemed the CHA's compliance.

7. The Tribunal concluded that Weling's actions fulfilled the CHA's obligations under Regulation 11, and as he was a 'G' card holder, there was no violation by the CHA. Therefore, the order revoking the license and forfeiting the security deposit was quashed, providing relief to the appellant CHA.

8. The impugned Order-in-Original revoking the license was set aside, with consequential relief in favor of the appellant, M/s. JD Impex, pronounced in open court on 18.12.2019.

---