Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 79 - AT - CustomsRevocation of CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - imposition of penalty - prohibition on the appellant to operate at the Kandla Port as a customs broker - HELD THAT:- While lifting the Prohibition Order, the Commissioner observed that the lifting of the Prohibition Order is subject to further outcome of proceedings initiated by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore. Further, in the meantime, the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore on the basis of said Prohibition Order issued the SCN to the appellant alleging violation of various Regulations as prescribed in CBLR, 2018 and appointed the Inquiry Officer. We also find that the said Inquiry Officer after conducting of detailed inquiry and examining the documents produced by the appellant as well as the exporter has exonerated the appellant by holding that they have not violated any of the Regulations 11 (a) (d) (e) (f) & (n) of CBLR, 2013. The only fault found by the Inquiry Officer against the appellant was lack of supervision towards the work carried out by the person employed by him who was a trainee officer. Further, there is no finding of the Inquiry Officer against the involvement of the appellant in the offence committed by the exporter regarding the overvaluation of the export goods. In view of the finding of the Inquiry Officer, it was not required to pass the impugned order by the Commissioner of Customs. Further, the Commissioner has also violated the principles of natural justice without putting the appellant to notice the reasons for his dis-agreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer which according to us is the basic requirement of law - Further, in various decisions this Courts have consistently held that the extreme penalty of revocation should be invoked only when there is a clear involvement of the appellant in mis-declaring the value of the goods in order to avail pecuniary benefits. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|