TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 190
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Upon her resignation on 28.05.2011, the Appellant claims to have appointed Shri Antony Raj and intimated the same to the Department vide letter dated 12.07.2011. It is the case of the Department, as reflected in the Show Cause Notice and Inquiry Report, that after resignation of the authorized signatory, the Appellant continued to transact business without a qualified person under Regulation 9 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 or Regulation 8 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, or the corresponding requirement under Regulation 6 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, as applicable during the relevant period and that Shri Amit K. Dedhia, being a G-card holder, handled a large number of documents without proper authorization. Based on the Inquiry Report, proceedings were initiated and the Adjudicating Authority passed the Impugned Order revoking the license, forfeiting the security deposit of Rs. 75,000/- and imposing a penalty of Rs.50,000/-. 2. Aggrieved by the said Impugned Order, the Appellant has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The Ld. Advocate Shri Viswanathan appeared for the appellant and advance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quiry Report, and the Impugned Order. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and the records of the case, the short issue for consideration is whether the Appellant Customs Broker has violated the provisions of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 by operating without a qualified person under Regulation 9 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 or Regulation 8 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, or the corresponding requirement under Regulation 6 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, as applicable during the relevant period and, if so, whether such violation warrants revocation of license, forfeiture of security deposit and imposition of penalty under the Impugned Order. 7. The entire dispute revolves around the allegation that the Appellant Customs Broker continued to transact business without a qualified person under Regulation 9 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 or Regulation 8 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, or the corresponding requirement under Regulation 6 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, as applicable during the relevant period after the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tner of the firm and a G-card holder, was competent to transact business. 12. The Department, on the other hand, has emphasized that the requirement of employing a qualified Regulation 9 person is mandatory and that failure to comply with the same strikes at the root of the licensing framework. It has been argued that the absence of documentary proof of authorization of Shri Antony Raj and the fact that he had not signed any documents clearly establishes that the Appellant had operated without compliance of statutory requirements. The Appellant also could not produce any acknowledged copy of the intimation allegedly given to the Department. 13. Upon careful evaluation of the above rival contentions, we find that the central issue is not merely whether Shri Antony Raj had signed documents or whether his appointment was acknowledged by the department, but whether the Appellant had made a bona fide attempt to comply with the regulatory requirement and whether the alleged lapse is of such a nature as to justify the extreme penalty of revocation. It is also noted that the Appellant could not produce any acknowledged copy of the intimation; however, mere absence of acknowledgment, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the reliance placed by the Department on the decision in Shipping & Travel (Agents) Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, reported in 2000 (117) E.L.T. 518 (Tri.) is clearly distinguishable on facts. In that case, the Tribunal was dealing with a situation where, after the death of the only qualified person holding the requisite permanent pass under Regulation 9, the Customs House Agent continued to operate for several years without any qualified person whatsoever and, more importantly, failed to inform the department of such crucial change. The Tribunal recorded a categorical finding that there was complete absence of a qualified person within the organization and that the CHA knowingly continued to function despite lacking competence, which was held to be a grave and substantive violation justifying suspension. 19. In contrast, in the present case, the Appellant has consistently maintained that a qualified person, namely Shri Antony Raj, had been appointed and that such appointment was duly intimated to the Department, though the same is not traceable in departmental records. The allegation is thus not of total absence of a qualified person but of lack of documentary....