2017 (4) TMI 681

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... strict penalty of revocation of the licence. 2 The facts are simple. The Customs House Agent respondent before this Court held a licence bearing No.11/896. That came to be revoked by the Commissioner of Customs (General) on 28th February, 2013. The charges which, are held to be proved pertain to the violation of Regulation 12, 13(a), 13(d) and 19(8) of the Customs House Agents Licence Regulation, 2004. 3 In the submission of Mr. Jetly, the Tribunal Members were divided in their opinion. One Member (Judicial) held that the charges have not been proved. Therefore, the Commissioner's order deserves to be quashed and set aside in toto. The Member (Technical) disagreed with him. He held that the charges are proved. That is why the mat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the respondent insisted that the revenue has all the records, whereas he has none. The revenue did not cooperate and a adverse inference is drawn. As far as the third charge is concerned, it is a consequence of the second charge of violation of regulation 13(a). The regulation that was violated and breached illegally was regulation 19(8). That envisages full control of the Customs House Agent. These being the nature of charges, the Member (Judicial) found that there was no clinching evidence so as to hold the Customs House Agent guilty. He had full control over the licence. 7 The Member (Technical) did not agree with the Member (Judicial) and held all the charges are proved. Consequently, he upheld the revocation of licence and confirme....