2016 (4) TMI 787

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g Rs. 3,00,000/- as penalty by the Commissioner of Customs on the ground of violation of Custom House Agent licence Regulation, 2004 and forfeiture of security deposit of Rs. 75,000/-. 2. The appellant is a Custom Broker Licence holder, under Custom House Agent Licence Regulation (CHALR), 2004, which is valid upto 29.07.2020. Mr.M.Dhanraj is qualified under Regulation 8 of the CHALR, 2004 and he is a sole proprietor and authorised signatory of the Customs Broker. On 18.02.2012, there was a raid by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officials and they seized the consignment of M/s. A.I. Enterprises, Thirunallur, vide shipping bill No.7630721, dated 18.02.2012. The said consignment was examined and found mis-declaration of goods....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce and no mensrea in the case registered by the DRI? 2.Whether the Tribunal was correct in filing to consider the retio laid down in the decision rendered by the Delhi High Court dated 14.03.2014 in the case of Ashiana Cargo Services Vs. Commissioner of Customs, reported in 2014 (302) ELT 161 (Del.)." 6. Heard Mr.N.Viswanathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.K.Mohanamurali, learned Senior Panel counsel appearing for the second respondent. 7. It is seen that the DRI raided the consignment and it was found the goods were mis-declared and prohibited item for export i.e., Red Sanders Logs were found in the containers. The goods were stuffed in the containers in the presence of the Customs Officials. After verificati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....veal no connivance on the part of the appellant either in mis-declaration or substitution of the goods by tampering with the Custom seal. Therefore, the extreme penalty of cancellation of CHA licence is not warranted in this case. 9. The Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Ashiana Cargo Services vs. Commissioner of Customs (ING) reported in 2014 (302) ELT 161 held that punishment must be proportional to gravity and nature of infraction by CHA and every infraction of CHA regulations, either under Regulation 2013 of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 or elsewhere, cannot lead to revocation of licence. In that case, the High Court while dealing with the order of CESTAT confirming the revocation licence of the appellant there....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., it was held the Custom House Agent is not bound to point out to the Assistant Commissioner of Custom that their acts are in conformity with provisions of the statute or to advise them to act in accordance with law. 12. By the said judgment, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs, setting aside the revocation of Custom House Licence of the licence holder by the Commissioner of Customs. In this case also, the custom house licence agent cannot be held liable as the alleged offence took place after his role was over namely, dealing of the container. Once the role of the CHA licence came to over, he cannot be responsible for subsequent events. 13. In any event, for giving signed blank forms to t....