SAINI CONSULTANTS Vs. CESTAT, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for brevity, 'the Act')/ is directed against order dated 3-8-2011 (P-1) [ (Tribunal)], passed by the Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Tribunal (for brevity, 'the Tribunal'). According to the provisions of Section 130, an appeal of this nature could only be admitted if there is a substantive question of law raised by the parties. The question raised in the instant petition is whether a Customs House Agent (CHA) sublet his licence by signing blank papers and get absolved by arguing that he has not committed fraud which his agent might have. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal would show that categorical findings of fact have been recorded. From the affidavit filed by the appellant it has been found that Rs. 2.28 crores have been recovered from imports made by 12 out of the 14 importers involved in the unlawful transactions. The Tribunal further held that those persons to whom the appellant had given blank signed papers had cheated the Government and it was not surprising that bulk of the amount was recovered after the fraud was detected. The appellant handed over signed blank documents to others and allowed them to operate in his name. After the commission of fraud by such persons, the appellant put forward the plea of alibi.

(2.) The Tribunal has recorded further findings in categorical terms that the license given to the Customs House Agents is not an instrument to seek rental income for putting signatures on blank documents. It has also been found that during the period in question the appellant was not doing any active job of Customs House Agent and was busy only signing the documents and that there was no reason to give any opportunity to the appellant to seek such income exposing the revenue to huge risk.

(3.) We have heard Learned Counsel for the appellant at a considerable length and are of the view that there is no error in the order passed by the Tribunal. The findings have been recorded in categorical terms which resulted into order of revocation of CHA license issued to the appellant and also forfeiture of guarantee furnished by it.