Per Mr. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO

The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant, M/s. Amit K. Dedhia, against Order-in-Original No. 17/2016 dated 26.08.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin (hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Order), whereby the Customs Broker license of the Appellant was revoked, the security deposit forfeited and penalty imposed under the provisions of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013.

1.2 The facts of the case, as borne out from the records including the Statement of Facts, reveal that the Appellant is a licensed Customs Broker holding License No. TRY-43/2002 and had initially engaged a qualified Regulation 9 holder, Smt. K.S. Parvathi. Upon her resignation on 28.05.2011, the Appellant claims to have appointed Shri Antony Raj and intimated the same to the Department vide letter dated 12.07.2011. It is the case of the Department, as reflected in the Show Cause Notice and Inquiry Report, that after resignation of the authorized signatory, the Appellant continued to transact business without a qualified person under Regulation 9 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 or Regulation 8 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, or the corresponding requirement under Regulation 6 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, as applicable during the relevant period and that Shri Amit K. Dedhia, being a G-card holder, handled a large number of documents without proper authorization. Based on the Inquiry Report, proceedings were initiated and the Adjudicating Authority passed the Impugned Order revoking the license, forfeiting the security deposit of Rs. 75,000/- and imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.

2. Aggrieved by the said Impugned Order, the Appellant has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal.

3. The Ld. Advocate Shri Viswanathan appeared for the appellant and advanced detailed arguments in support of the appeal. The Ld. Authorized Representative Ms. Rajini Menon appeared for the Respondent and supported the Impugned Order.

4. The Ld. counsel for the Appellant submitted that the findings recorded in the Impugned Order are erroneous and contrary to the facts on record. It was contended that the Appellant had duly appointed Shri Antony Raj, a qualified person under Regulation 9, and had intimated the Department vide letter dated 12.07.2011, and that mere absence of acknowledgment of such communication in departmental records cannot be held against the Appellant, particularly when manual submission was the prevailing practice at the relevant time. It was further submitted that under Regulation 11(b) of CBLR, 2013, a Customs Broker is entitled to transact business either personally or through an authorized employee and that Shri Amit K. Dedhia, being a partner and G-card holder, was competent to sign documents. The Appellant also contended that no discrepancy or irregularity was ever found in any of the documents handled by them and that the alleged lapse, if any, is purely procedural in nature and does not warrant revocation of license. It was further urged that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are biased and beyond the scope of the inquiry and that the recommendation of all three penalties reflects non-application of mind.

5. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the Department supported the Impugned Order and submitted that the Inquiry Report clearly establishes that the Appellant had operated without a qualified Regulation 9 holder for a prolonged period. It was contended that the requirement of employing a qualified person is mandatory and failure to comply renders the operations unauthorized. The Department emphasized that no documentary proof of authorization of Shri Antony Raj was available and that he had not signed any documents, thereby discrediting the claim of the Appellant, and further argued that the continued signing of documents by a G-card holder without proper authorization amounts to violation of Regulation 17, justify