Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

It is seen that based upon the result of the above investigation, the appellant was served with a show cause notice dated 09.10.2012 proposing to impose penalty upon him in terms of the provision of the Customs Act. The said show cause notice culminated into an order passed by the Additional Commissioner imposing penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under section 117 of the Customs Act. The Additional Commissioner also recommended suspension of the CHA license in terms of the Regulation 20 of the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulation 2004.

3. It is seen that the said order of the Additional Commissioner were appealed against by the assessee before Commissioner (A), who set aside the order of Original Adjudicating Authority by observing in para 8,9 & 10 as under:

8. The crux of the findings of the learned Additional Commissioner leading to imposition of penalty appears to be that it was incumbent upon the CHA to verify the credentials of the firm and their partners by physically visiting their office/residential premises which in my considered opinion is misconceived as neither CHALR 2004 nor Circular 09/2010-CUS prescribed such personal visit during the relevant time. The circular only required the CHA to verify the credentials by using reasonable means and I observe that the documents obtained by the appellant and verification therefore from their website was sufficient compliance to the requirement prescribed in Circular regarding KYC norms to be adhered by a Customs House Agent.
10. Thus, I find force in the submission of the learned Counsel that the appellant had sufficiently complied with the requirement of Regulation 13 of the Custom House Agent Licensing Regulation, 2004 and the Circular No. 9/2010 dated 08.04.2010 by obtaining the requisite documents and verifying the same from the respective website before accepting the assignment and hence cannot be held guilty of violation of the provisions of Regulation 13 or liable to imposition of penalty under section 117 of Customs Act, 1962 or for suspension of license. The findings of the ld. Additional Commissioner being contrary to the stipulations of CHALR 2004 or the circular 09/2010 and therefore unsustainable in law.

5. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant has drawn our attention to the present impugned order wherein the Adjudicating Authority has simpliciter adopted the result of enquiry report and without independently examining the issue. As regards KYC (Know your client) norms, it was contended that the appellant had verified the veracity of telephone bill, pan card and IEC from the respective website which was sufficient compliance to the stipulation of the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulation 2004 as also of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation of 2013 and the circular no. 09/2010-CUS. Ld. Advocate has also drawn our attention to the independent findings of the Commissioner (A) order passed challenging the imposition of penalty imposed under section 117 of the Act. The said order of the Commissioner (A) setting aside the penalty on the appellant stands accepted by the Revenue and no appeal stands filed. As such by drawing our attention to various decisions of the Tribunal as also by High court, it stands held that the appellants revocation of CHA licenses was neither called for nor justified.