Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2018 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 1604 - AT - CustomsRevocation of CHA License - imposition of penalty - contravention of 11(a), 11(d) and 11(e) of CBLR 2013 - case of applicant is that once the documents as allegedly deficient were already submitted, that there was no reason for revoking the CHA license under section 11 of CBLR as alleged - Held that:- It is apparent from his application that in the financial year 2018 itself, he has filed 13,000 Bill of Entry / shipping bills. It is mentioned that as far as impugned consignment is concerned, it is one more consignment of the same importer, who was already filing Bills of Entry for clearance of the goods through the appellant/applicant and that the previous consignments have duly been cleared - it is prima facie apparent that documents have been complete with reference to the said previous consignments. It is also an apparent and admitted fact that for the impugned consignment also the importer, the CHA and even the introducer are same. Apparently there seems no question of different set of documents as that of KYC including PAN, authorization letter etc. of the importer. This Tribunal in another matter with respect to the present applicant itself, M/S. HIM LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. VERSUS CC, NEW DELHI [2016 (4) TMI 971 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], has also held that once CHA is ascertained to have followed KYC norms and verifying the copies of requisite documents, there remains no legal requirement on his part for physically verifying the business and their residential premises of the importer. Since the appellant, prima facie seems to have complied with the obligation cast upon him, revocation of his license is unproportionate penalty - In view of the arguments on behalf of the applicant that the order under challenge has not properly appreciated the fact of the compliance of Regulation 11C of CBLR 2013 on part of the appellant the revocation is prima facie opined to be harsh order causing prima facie irreparable loss not only to the CHA but to his employees as well. These observations are opined sufficient for staying the operation of revocation of CHA license. Application disposed off.
|