2012 (3) TMI 424 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
Revocation of CHA licence u/s CHALR, 2004 based on charges of undervaluation and mis-declaration of imported goods, aiding smuggling, sub-letting licence, lack of valid authorization, failure to advise clients, and non-verification of importing firm.

Revocation of CHA Licence:
The appeal challenged the revocation of the CHA licence of M/s. C.P. Mota & Co. for various violations under CHALR, 2004. The charges included sub-letting the licence, lack of valid authorization, failure to transact business personally or through an approved employee, and not advising clients properly. The Inquiry Officer found all charges proved, leading to the revocation of the licence by the Commissioner. The appellant contended that proper procedure was not followed in the inquiry, depriving them of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. However, the Revenue argued that evidence, including statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, established the violations conclusively.

Sub-letting of Licence:
The evidence presented, including statements by involved parties, confirmed that Shri Dyaneshwar Ganpat Bhoir was not an employee but worked on a commission basis, paying the CHA for using the licence. This sub-letting of the licence was a clear violation of CHALR, 2004. The terms of appointment also indicated that Shri Dyaneshwar was responsible for all aspects of clearance, contradicting the claim of being an employee. Defense witnesses' statements did not support the CHA's contentions, further confirming the sub-letting of the licence.

Regulatory Violations:
The records established that the CHA firm misrepresented Shri Dyaneshwar as an employee, allowing him to handle transactions independently. This violated the regulations requiring transactions to be conducted personally or through an approved employee. The CHA's blind signing of customs documents brought in by Shri Dyaneshwar further indicated violations of CHALR, 2004. The adjudicating authority's decision to revoke the licence based on these violations was upheld, citing precedents where breach of regulations and misuse of licence warranted revocation.

Judicial Precedents:
The judgment referred to previous cases where single acts of corruption or violations of CHALR regulations justified revocation of licences. The decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts of Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh supported the revocation in cases of sub-letting licences, non-maintenance of records, and permitting unauthorized individuals to transact on behalf of the CHA. Consequently, the appeal against the revocation of the CHA licence was dismissed, upholding the decision of the adjudicating authority.