EXCEL SHIPPING SERVICES Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE the impugned order the Commissioner of Customs has revoked the CHA licence issued to the Appellants herein for a period of two years from the date of the order i.e., 09.07.2010. Revocation arises as a result of violation by the CHA of Clauses (a), (d) and (e) of Regulation 13 of CHALR, 2004.

(2.) WE have heard both sides. Regulation 13(a) provides for obtaining authorization from the exporter, it is the case of the department that the Assessee did not obtain written authorization from M/s. CTC, the exporter. Regulation 13(d) stipulates that the CHA should advice his clients to comply with the provisions of the Act and in case of non compliance, he shall bring the matter to the notice of the Dy. Commissioner/Asst. Commissioner of Customs. It is the case of the department, on the basis of the finding of the enquiry officer that the CHA had not advised his clients to comply with the provisions of the Act with all required information as to the IEC code, description of the goods, weight, value, the destination etc. The goods in question were of inferior quality, lower value and door mats were concealed under the declared ladies blouses. Regulation 13 (e) provides for a CHA to exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any information which he imparts to a client with reference to any work related to clearance of cargo or baggage; and it is the finding of the enquiry officer that the CHA has knowingly facilitated export of misdeclared and overvalued cargo and thus abetted in the commission of the offence by the exporter. We also find that the penalty imposed upon the CHA vide the order dated 29.08.06 of the Commissioner Customs, Coimbatore, has not been challenged, and the penalty has also been paid by the CHA, which amounts to tacit acceptance of violation by the CHA. In the light of the above discussion, the charges against the CHA have been made out and the revocation is therefore justified. However, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and noting that the CHA has been out of business since July, 2010, when the revocation order was passed, we reduce the period of revocation of licence from two years to one year from the date of issue of the impugned order i.e., one year from 09.07.2010. As regards the forfeiture of Rs. 25,000/ - furnished in the form of fixed deposit in connection with the CHA licence, we see no reason to interfere with it.