By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JULY 24, 2017: THIS is a Revenue appeal filed in the year 2007 against the o-in-o passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai.

The matter was heard recently.

The respondent had made an application for adjournment but the same was rejected by the Bench on the ground that there were no good reasons stated by the CHA while seeking is rejected for no good reasons stated by the appelant CHA and, moreover, the appeal was eleven years old and that seeking of adjournment was not the right of the litigant when the matter was found to be a gross violation of law.

The CESTAT observed that although the Inquiry authority had held the CHA guilty, the Commissioner was lenient to drop the proceedings against the CHA who committed serious breach of law as recorded in his order. Inasmuch as the adjudicating authority had taken this view on the ground that penalty imposed of Rs.50,000/- vide O-in-O dated 30th August 2003 was set aside by CESTAT vide order dated 13.5.2004. It was also viewed that there should be no proceedings against the CHA.

Peeved with this observation made by the AA, the Bench remarked -

"…It is surprising how such a view has been taken by the Commissioner when proceedings under CHALR, 2004 and Customs Act, 1962 are different and consequences thereof follow according to the provisions of law laid down therein. Therefore remand of the matter back to the learned Commissioner is warranted to re-examine the enquiry report of the enquiring authority, affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant CHA, and pass appropriate order."

The Tribunal also noted that a matter involving the same CHA had come before the Bench and in that case which was remanded the appellant's persons were involved in the forgery of signature of Customs officer.

In the light of the said instance, the Bench further mentioned -

"4. …, it is necessary for the learned Chief Commissioner of Customs to keep track of this CHA so that he is desisted from causing mischief to Revenue and the interest of Customs is not jeopardized. It is also necessity of the law that persons involved in commitment of sequential offences should be kept on watch without any leniency. Since Customs law is not for mere collection of Revenue but also to safeguard interest of the country, in view of the object of the provision of Section 11 of Customs Act, 1962, learned Authority shall take appropriate measure."

The matter was remanded and the Registry was directed to send a copy of the order to the Chief Commissioner, Customs for doing the needful.

(See 2017-TIOL-2549-CESTAT-MUM)