The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that revocation of the Customs House Agent (CHA) license or forfeiture of the security deposit cannot be done in the absence of direct involvement of the Customs House Agent.
Mishra & Mishra (Agency) Enterprises, the appellant assessee was a Customs Broker for filing a bill of entry based on the import documents received from the importer and they filed the bill of entry for the import of Sodium Benzoate from the information received by the importer.
The assessee appealed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for confirming the revocation of the Customs Broker license and for the forfeiture of the security deposit of CHA.
R.N.Bandapadhyay, the counsel for the assessee contended that there was no direct involvement of the CHA and for merely having filed the import documents as per the instructions of the importer, forfeiture of the security deposit was indeed too harsh a punishment that indeed was not called for in the given circumstances.
Tariq Sulaiman, the counsel for the department relied on the decisions made by the lower authorities and contended that the revocation of license and the forfeiture of security deposits was as per the law and liable to be sustained.
The Bench observed that in the case of M/s Aman Cargo Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, the court held that no revocation of the CHA Licence in the absence of any direct involvement of the CHA and under the circumstances not subjecting the CHA to any penal consequence.
The two-member bench comprising Ashok Jindal (Judicial) and Rajeev Tandon (Technical) held that the revocation of CB license was not as per the law and was liable to be deleted.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
