JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J.(Oral)--The present appeal has been filed under section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the order dated 08.05.2018 in Customs Appeal No. C/50754/2018-CU[DB] and order dated 27.07.2018 in Customs ROM Application No. C/ROM/50603/2018 (in Customs Appeal No. C/50754/2018-CU[DB]), passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby Order-in-original dated 06.02.2018 of the Commissioner of Customs (General), Custom House, New Delhi cancelling Customs House Agency License of the Appellant, has been upheld.

2. It is the case of the Appellant that he is the proprietor of M/s Exim Cargo Services and works as Custom House Agent/Broker and used to facilitate importers in completing the necessary documentation provided by the importers or their nominated persons for clearances of imported goods from customs. During 2015-2016, one importer i.e., M/s Pax Technology Private Limited imported certain Point of Sale and/or Mobile Point of Sale devices (also known as 'POS' and 'MPOS' respectively). The Customs observed some irregularity in respect of clearance of such imports and based upon specific inputs, examined one such consignment and seized it for further investigation. During the course of investigation, authorities recorded statements of various persons which revealed involvement of some persons acting as intermediaries, in forgery of invoices, mis-declaration and under-valuations. Accordingly, SCNs were issued to various persons and Customs Housing Agents including the Appellant, accusing the Appellant of not informing the importer about the requirement of BIS certification and ETA by WPC for importation of such devices into India, under Regulation 10 of the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations (CHALR), 1984 superseded by Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 and subsequently by Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013. The SCN issued to the Appellant was finalised by the Commissioner of Customs (General) on 06.02.2018, ordering cancellation of the CHA license of the Appellant. The Appellant's appeal before the CESTAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi met with the same fate by virtue of the impugned order dated 08.05.2018. The Appellant then preferred a Rectification Application before the CESTAT, which too was dismissed by it vide order dated 27.07.2018. Consequently, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal.

3. Notice of the Appeal was issued on 05.12.2018 and the following question of law was framed:

"Whether the CESTAT fell into error in attributing the statements of Rajender Kumar @ Raju to the appellant and whether the finding with respect to the omission and negligence was of such magnitude as to call for revocation of the CHA licence in the circumstances of the case?"

4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records. From the records, it is evident that the statement of one Rajender Prasad - an employee of the appellant, was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. A perusal of the statement shows that he has not made any admission of any wrongdoing, or guilt in the matter of acting as the Customs House Agent of the importer Exim Cargo Services.

5. There is another person whose statement has been recorded, namely Rajender @ Raju under Section 108 of the Customs Act. In his statement, he has, inter alia, stated as follows:

"Question 2: Have you formed any firm or company and also have you any associate or partner in your business?

Answer: I have not formed any firm or company but in my business of customs clearance, Shri Susheel Kumar Mishra is my regular partner. Shri Sanjay Kataria is also an associate in our business. We contact various collectively and share the profit earned.

Question 3: please provide business address of all of you?

Answer: While me and Shri Susheel Kumar Mishra operates from our office at Ground Floor, K-384, Gali no. 6, Mahipalpur Extension, New Delhi. Exa