The court emphasized the serious nature of misconduct by a Customs House Agent in allowing unauthorised persons to handle shipping bills, and upheld the order of revocation by the Commissioner.

JUDGMENT :

Dipak Misra, J.

The respondent, M/s. K.M. Ganatra & Co., was granted a Regular Customs House Agent (CHA) licence under Regulation 10 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 (for brevity 'the 1984 Regulations') framed under Section 146 of the Customs Act,1962 (for brevity `the Act'). While the respondent was carrying on the business, a letter was received from the Joint Director, DRI, BZU, Mumbai wherein it was mentioned that certain units based in Moradabad and Rampur area were misusing DEEC and DEPC Scheme and submitting fictitious or forged shipping bills either with a view to obtain inadmissible Duty Entitled Pass Books (DEPBs) or for fulfilling the export obligations against advance licences under Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate (DEEC) Scheme, and to obtain waiver of BG conditions against the DEEC Licence as per the Exim Policy, though in reality no physical export of goods was taking place. In essence, the communication was to the effect that documents were fabricated to show that goods were exported.

2. On the basis of the aforesaid information, investigations were initiated and certain firms were identified which were involved in the misuse of the licence in the aforestated manner. During the investigation it was found that an endeavour had been made to give the impression that they were bona fide exporters. The shipping bills were filed and for the said purpose, services of CHA licence of the respondent licensee was utilised. It had further come to the notice of the authorities that after due investigation and interrogation, it had allowed its licence to be used by certain unauthorised persons for monetary consideration. After the said aspect came to light, the licence was suspended under Regulation 21(2) of the 1984 Regulations and an enquiry was held against it under Regulation 23 of the 1984 Regulations. The enquiry officer held the enquiry and submitted the report on 25.10.2005 holding, inter alia, that the misconduct alleged against the respondent that it had allowed the unauthorised persons to handle the shipping bills stood proved, and accordingly opined that the articles of charge under Regulations 12, 13(b), 13(d), 20(1)(c), 13(n) of the Custom House Agent Licensing Regulations, 2004 (for short, 'the 2004 Regulations') were established.

3. On the basis of the said enquiry report, the Commissioner of Customs (General), New Customs House Ballard Estate, Mumbai on 22.08.2006, after affording appropriate opportunity of hearing to the respondent and analysing the facts and the material brought on record, came to hold that there had been misuse of the licence issued in favour of the respondent and further the violation was serious in nature and it did tantamount to involvement in fraudulent activity affecting the revenue. Being of this view, it cancelled the licence and revoked the entire security deposit.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent preferred Appeal No. C/1135/06 - Mum before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the tribunal'). The tribunal, by its decision dated 12.12.2006 opined thus:-

"We have considered the submissions. We find that it is an admitted fact that the appellant has allowed Shri Vipul Shah to carry on business on monthly rental basis or a consignment basis which has resulted in fraudulent exports by his client whose credentials were not lloked into by the CHA. This cannot be considered as a mere commission agent being employed by the CHA. In fact no authorisation from the customer in favour of the CHA is on record and the copy produced by the appellant is without any date and there is no evidence that it was procured before taking up the business of the exporters in question. On the other hand the appellants contend that the same was recovered by the DRI but could not show any panchnama to that effect. We find that the tribunal has in the case of Noble Agency held that the statement of defence witness that employer for