Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 791 - AT - CustomsRevocation of CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - time limit for submission of enquiry report - it is alleged that the entire proceeding has been completed beyond the prescribed time limit under the CBLR - violation of provisions of Regulation 11(d), 11(e), 11(m) and 17(9) of the CBLR - penalty - HELD THAT:- From the order of the Commissioner, it is found that the submissions made by the appellant were not duly considered and the penalty of revocation was imposed without considering any alternate penalty. By revocation of licence of the appellant, there is denial of livelihood of appellant along with their employees - also due to inherent contradiction among the statements recorded by the various persons, the revocation of CHA licence, which is harshest should not have been imposed by the impugned order as it would be disproportionate to the offence committed by the appellant even if it is held so. The Appellant has not been avoiding the investigation, but cooperated and also made a payment of ₹ 65.00 Lakhs to Customs so as to make good the loss to the Revenue. This in itself proves the bona fide of the appellant to sincerely attempt for the loss of revenue to be compensated. The charge against appellant is only regarding violation of Regulation 18(d) and 17(a) of CBLR. Regulation 11(d) and CBLR 13 is not established conclusively, which says “Customs Broker shall advice his client to comply with provision of the act and in case of noncompliance bring the matter to the notice of Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner of Customs as the case may be” - Since the investigation was not carried out in respect of all consignments of import of old and used garments, for which weighment slips were made available it cannot be established beyond doubt that offence has been committed for all as held in the impugned order. Penalty - HELD THAT:- The penalty that has been imposed against the appellant in the impugned order is disproportionate to the penalty imposed. The appellant has suffered from the date of suspension of his licence till now which in our opinion is itself sufficient considering the gravity of offence committed by the appellant - the impugned order is not sustainable and liable to be set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|