TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 864
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le over-valuation of export products with the intent to avail ineligible draw-back and concession available on such export items. The investigation concluded and resulted in various proceedings under Customs Act, 1962. The proceedings against the appellant under Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 [CHALR, 2004] has also been initiated vide show-cause notice dated 08.06.2006. The notice alleged that the appellant failed on three counts, namely, Regulation 13(a), 13(d) and 13(e). In short, the allegation is that the appellant failed to obtain authorization from his clients to deal with Customs, failed to advise his clients for proper compliance of Customs Act and failed to exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that they are beneficiary of any admitted misdemeanor by the exporter. The work is done as per the fee paid per shipping bill and no other benefit has accrued to the appellant. Further, he strongly pleaded that the show-cause notice dated 08.06.2006 is very cryptic regarding the allegation against the appellant. Whereas, the impugned order relied on various facts, which are neither indicated nor relied upon in the notice issued to the appellant. He has given many such instances like reference to specific documents, which are not recorded in the original allegation. The learned counsels main plea, without reference to merit, is on two fold (a) Substantial delay in conclusion of proceedings against him from the date of suspension [15.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....two preliminary submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant for examination first. It is a fact that there is a delay of four years in issue of the impugned order. Over and above, in the appellate stage another six years have passed. It is an admitted fact that the appellant is out of his livelihood for more than ten years. The second issue is regarding the validity of impugned order on the principle that it travelled beyond the allegations made in the show-cause notice. We find that though the show-cause notice alleged the violation of three clauses of Regulation 13, the detailed order by learned Commissioner quoted and relied on certain details which are not referred to in the show-cause notice. He relied on certain details ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in any ordered system - be proportional to the violation. Just as the law abhors impunity for infraction, it cautions against the disproportional penalty. Neither of the extreme is to be encouraged. The Hon'ble High Court applied proportionality doctrine to hold that inability of the appellant to work for long time has to be considered, while deciding the case. We also referred to decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad-II Vs H.B. Cargo Services reported in 2011 (268) E.L.T. 448 (A.P.). The Honble High Court held in para 11 of its order as under: "11. While issuance of signed blank shipping bills would, by itself, amount to negligence on the part of the CHA, their doing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hment, which is grossly in excess of the allegations, cannot claim immunity and remains open for interference under limited scope of judicial review. One of the tests to be applied, while dealing with the question of quantum of punishment, would be: would any reasonable person have imposed such punishment in like circumstances? Obviously, a reasonable person is expected to take into consideration the measure, magnitude and degree of misconduct and all other relevant circumstances, and exclude irrelevant matters before imposing punishment [Mukul Kumar Choudhuri - (2009) 15 SCC 620]. The CHALR enables both suspension and revocation of the license of a CHA for violation of any of the conditions specified therein. If any such ground exists, two....