CHA is supposed to safeguard interests of both importers and Customs - Cancellation of Licence Upheld - Supreme Court
A CHA license was cancelled by the Commissioner for involvement in fraudulent activity affecting the revenue.
The Tribunal observed, "We consider it too harsh a punishment as it deprives the CHA of his livelihood. We consider that revocation for a period of three years from the date of suspension of licence would be sufficient and on expiry of three years, licence may be restored."
The Revenue took the matter in appeal to the High Court. But the High Court held that the order of the Tribunal did not warrant any interference.
A persistent Revenue pursued the matter further to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court observed, "The CHA occupies a very important position in the Custom House. The Customs procedures are complicated. The importers have to deal with a multiplicity of agencies viz. carriers, custodians like BPT as well as the Customs. The importer would find it impossible to clear his goods through these agencies without wasting valuable energy and time. The CHA is supposed to safeguard the interests of both the importers and the Customs. A lot of trust is kept in CHA by the importers/exporters as well as by the Government Agencies. To ensure appropriate discharge of such trust, the relevant regulations are framed. Regulation 14 of the CHA Licensing Regulations lists out obligations of the CHA. Any contravention of such obligations even without intent would be sufficient to invite upon the CHA the punishment listed in the Regulations. …"
The Supreme Court unhesitatingly held that this misconduct has to be seriously viewed and allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the Tribunal and High Court and restoring that of the Commissioner.
Please see Commissioner of Customs Vs KM Ganatra & Co-