By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JULY 25, 2016: REVENUE has challenged the order of the CESTAT.

The respondents are Customs House Agents.

It is the claim of the Revenue that the respondents have assisted the importers in defrauding the Revenue by winning over the trust and confidence of the concerned officials; that these were all intentional and deliberate acts and hence, it cannot be said that the respondents were innocent. And, therefore, the Revenue had rightly proceeded against the respondents for lack of due care and utter negligence and revoked their licence.

The High Court observed that the respondent had challenged the revocation of their licence for breach of Regulations 13(d), 13(e), and 13(n) of the CHALR, 2004 and the CESTAT held that the charges under Regulation 13(d) and 13(e) could not be proved.

The High Court added -

++ Once the respondents were not guilty of aiding and abetting the importers, then, the importers' acts may amount to evasion of customs duty, but those can be proceeded independently.

++ As far as the respondents/Agents are concerned, they have not been held to be guilty of conniving and that of colluding with these importers. Therefore, all that they were pronounced guilty for is some lack of care or supervision. For that, the Tribunal has brought down the period of revocation. It has maintained the forfeiture, but to the extent indicated in the impugned order.

++ It is not the contention of the Revenue that the Tribunal was not empowered to do so in law. The argument is, that it should not have done it. We do not think that in our limited jurisdiction we can re-appreciate and re-appraise a pure finding of fact.

Noting that the Revenue is unable to demonstrate that the order of the CESTAT is perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record, the High Court dismissed the appeal.

(See 2016-TIOL-1496-HC-MUM-CUS)