AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellant is a CHA and this appeal is against the order dated 4/3/2015 issued by Commissioner of Customs General NCH, New Delhi. Today,
the stay application filed by the appellant came up for hearing. The main appeal itself is taken up for disposal on consent, after waiving the
requirement of pre-deposit to admit the appeal.
Proceedings were initiated against the appellant by issue of show cause notice dated 6/1/2012 for contravention of various provisions of Regulations
13 of Customs House Agent Licence Regulation 2004. The Original Authority vide his order dated 4/3/2015 held that the offence committed by the
appellant cannot be considered to be so grave as to warrant revocation of their licence. Further, he held that penal action is called for and accordingly
ordered the for-feiture of security deposit of Rs.50,000/- of the appellant. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed this appeal.
Ld. Counsel Shri, Prabhat Kumar, for the applicant, submitted that once the Original Authority held that revocation of licence is not warranted, he
cannot order forfeiture of the security deposit. He relied on the Tribunal's decision in the case of V.B. Bhatia and Co. reported in 2006 (200) ELT 150
(Tri-Mumbai).
Ld. AR Shri R.K. Grover, for the respondent submitted that in terms of Regulations 20(1) read with Regulations 22 of CHALR 2004, the
Commissioner has powers to forfeit the security deposit. It is not necessary that such forfeiture should be ordered only when the licence is revoked.
We have heard both the sides and examined appeal records.
We find that similar matter came up for decision before the Tribunal in the case of V.B. Bhatia and Company (supra) wherein the Tribunal held
that when revocation cannot be upheld on merits, for- feiture alone cannot be upheld. We find that the case was taken up to Bombay High Court by
the Revenue and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court dismissed the Customs (Appeal) upholding the order of the Tribunal [2008 (224) ELT A97
Bombay].
Having considered the above decision of the Tribunal, we find that the impugned order forfeiture of security deposit without revocation of the
licence is not sustainable.
Accordingly, we allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any