Per J.H. Joglekar :

The appellant is a CHA. The licence held by them was suspended on 29.5.1995. Subsequently, enquiries were conducted and the enquiry report was submitted to the competent authority viz. Commissioner of Customs. The Commissioner ordered revocation of the CHA licence resulting in the present appeal being filed.

2. The proceedings commenced with the investigation launched by the appropriate authority in connection with importation of copper ingots by fictitious importers where the import licences were obtained by fraud. Certain consignments imported by one of such fictitious firm viz. M/s. Vinob Exports Pvt. Ltd. were handled by the present appellants. The investigators found that S/Shri Dhirendra Singh and Satyedra Singh who posed themselves as employees of the present appellant were not, in fact, employees, but were independent operators who used to pay Shri Maru, the director of the present appellants, a fixed some of money every month for utilisation of their CHA licence. Enquiry further showed that a total of 9 persons were operating in this manner. They were actually not employees but they were authorised as such, and used to handle clearance of independent imports and exports for which they used to pay a monthly sum to the present appellants. The statements of these persons were recorded under the Sec. 108 of the Customs Act. On the basis of these statements, it was found that the estimated sum received was over Rs. 25,000/- per month by sub-letting the licence. Investigations also showed that his accounts were not maintained properly. It was alleged that the CHA did not have a valid authorisation from M/s. Vinob Exports Pvt. Ltd. for clearing the imports. The statements of imputation contained the following grounds:

Firstly, that the CHA sub-let the licence to be used by other persons who were not his employees for certain monetary consideration. Another specific claim was also made referring to the imports made by M/s. Vinob Exports P. Ltd. that was that he had failed to take appropriate caution in handling the consignment. The second important allegation was that specific authorisation was not available with CHA for handling imports made by M/s. Vinob Exports Pvt. Ltd. The third charge was that the CHA had not maintained any accounts properly. Although a number of article of charge was labelled, these are the substance of the charges.

3. Shri Shetty, the ld. counsel attempted to show from the deposition of the persons who had used the licence that the conclusion drawn from them by the ld. Commissioner was not correct.

4. We have very carefully perused the details of Examination-in-Chief of a defence witness viz. Shri Sudesh Mether conducted on 3.1.98. The witness claimed that the company of which he was an employee did not have a CHA licence and that he was using the appellant's licence for the clearance of goods of the company on payment of monthly sums to the appellants. We find on perusal of this statement and other statements that the belief of the Commissioner that the CHA had allowed his licence to be used by other persons and that amounted to sub-letting of the licence was well founded.

5. As regards the lack of maintenance also what is given by Shri Maru is a weak defence on the ground of illness. The fact that the accounts were not maintained properly has not been denied at all.

6. The ld. Counsel submits that perusal of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Adj.) dealing with the liability of confiscation of the contraband imported in terms of the fraudulent licences would indicate that the proper authorisation was obtained by Shri Singh from Shri Didwania of the importers and that it must have been filed with B/E as is required. He also made the claim that the clearance documents were taken over by investigating agencies and showed us that request was made for inspection thereof. The Commissioner in the impugned order observed that the CHA had not perused the panchanama under which the do