PEAK AGENCIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ashok Jindal, Member (J)

(2.) THE appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein their customs house agent licence No. 11/896 has been revoked by the Commissioner of Customs (General) on February 28, 2013. Brief facts of the case are that on a specific information the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence officials detained three consignments and found that one Shri Dhirubhai Shah is using the customs house agent licence of the appellant for clearance of the mis -declared goods. On the basis of enquiry report, proceedings under regulation 22 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 has been initiated against the appellant and charges were framed under regulations 12, 13(a), 13(d) and 19(8) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004. After the enquiry report, personal hearing was granted to the appellant by the learned Commissioner who observed as given below:

(3.) THE learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that with regard to article of charges under regulation 12 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, no licence shall be sold or otherwise transferred. At the time of investigation of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Shri Dhirubhai Shah made a statement that he is using the licence of the appellant on payment of Rs. 5,000 per month. In fact, this statement was given under duress and coercing which was retracted by Shri Dhiru -bhai Shah within 24 hours. The said statement is not reliable in the light of the evidence produced by the appellant that Shri Dhirubhai Shah was an employee of the appellant and gets a salary of Rs. 5,000 per month. It was duly entered in the books of accounts and to support the genuineness of the books of accounts he produced the income -tax return which shows that the salary paid to the Shri Dhirubhai Shah as expenses by the appellant. Therefore, the charge of sub -letting of licence by the appellant to Shri Dhirubhai Shah does not proved.