The central legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of Customs House Agents to adhere to the regulations, exercise due diligence, and refrain from engaging in fraudulent activities, as their actions can have far-reaching consequences.

F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.

The questions that have posed for our consideration are, -

In C/Ref/13/97 :-

(a)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal upholding cancellation of CHA licence made by the Department is legal and proper?

(b)Whether the Tribunal is justified in confirming the order of forfeituring deposit of Rs. 25, 000/- made by the appellant?

(c)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in ordering that the appellant should conduct the business by himself and not through any power of attorney holder and whether the same is contrary to the Licencing Regulations (9) of CHLR, 1984?

In C/Ref/28/97 :-

Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal to the effect that on further deposit of Rs. 25, 000/- the licence of the respondent shall stand renewed with effect from 1-1-1997, is legal and proper?

2.The Applicant was a holder of Regular Customs House Agent Licence herein called "CHAL" issued by Madras Customs under Regulation 10(2) of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulation (CHALR) 1984, herein-after called as 'Regulations'. The Applicant was issued with the licence on 7-9-1992. The validity of the said licence was for three years from the date of its issue. As per the condition of the licence, the Customs Agent work should be transacted only through Proprietor of the Applicant namely Thiru K. Natarajan. The specimen signature of Thiru K. Natarajan was also obtained in the very licence itself. The CHA licence was issued under Regulation 10 and the period of the validity of regulation licence issued under Section 10 which was originally three years was subsequently amended in the year 1994 and the period was extended to five years.

3.On a search conducted by the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras in the premises of M/s. G.D. Enterprises, Madras, M/s. Rekha Overseas and M/s. Trendy Moods, Madras, voluminous incriminating documents were recovered revealing an evasion of duty by the above said three firms to the tune of Rs. 80 lakhs. In all the three cases, the documents were filed by the Applicant Sri Kamakshi Agency, represented by its Proprietor Thiru Natarajan and was operated through his Power of Attorney Sri D. Sukumaran. On an enquiry held by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras, Sri Natarajan deposed to the effect that he signed the bills getting a remuneration of Rs. 50/- per bill and had also taken a caution deposit of Rs. 75, 000/- from his Power of Attorney Holder allegedly to safeguard himself from any misuse of CHA licence by his Power Agent.

4.Immediately on coming to know of the above-said incident, the CHA licence for the Applicant was suspended on 3-10-1994 and a show cause notice was issued on 23-8-1995. The Applicant filed his provisional reply dated 29-5-1995 and full fledged replies dated 25-5-1995 and 7-8-1995 along with certain annexures. An enquiry was held by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs on 10-10-1995. The Applicant appeared before the Enquiry Officer and also made his submissions. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated nil holding that the CHA grossly violated the obligations case upon it under Regulations 14(a), (d), (e), (1) and 20(7) of CHALR, 1984 and thereby the char-ged levelled against him in the Show Cause Notice was fully sustainable. The Report of the Enquiry Officer was furnished to the Applicant on 19-12-1995 and the Applicant submitted his reply on 4-1-1996. After considering the reply of the Applicant, the respondent herein passed orders on 25-1-1996 confirming the suspension and also ordered revocation of CHA licence No. R359/CHA issued to the Applicant. The respondent also ordered forfeiture of the security deposit of Rs. 25, 000/-.

5.As against the orders of the respondent dated 21-5-1996, the Applicant preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. By order dated 1-11-1996 in Appeal No.