Page 196 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

586 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

18. Similarly we find that the Commissioner has not considered any
other penalty and resorted to the extreme penalty, by revocation of CHA licence.
From the order of the Commissioner we find that the submissions made by the
appellant were not duly considered and the penalty of revocation was imposed
without considering any alternate penalty. By revocation of licence of the appel-
lant, there is denial of livelihood of appellant along with their employees. We
also find that due to inherent contradiction among the statements recorded by
the various persons, the revocation of CHA licence, which is harshest should not
have been imposed by the impugned order as it would be disproportionate to
the offence committed by the appellant even if it is held so. The Appellant has
not been avoiding the investigation, but cooperated and also made a payment of
Rs. 65.00 Lakhs to Customs so as to make good the loss to the Revenue. This in
itself proves the bona fide of the appellant to sincerely attempt for the loss of rev-
enue to be compensated. The charge against appellant is only regarding violation
of Regulations 18(d) and 17(a) of CBLR. Regulation 11(d) of CBLR 2013 is not
established conclusively, which says “Customs Broker shall advice his client to
comply with provision of the act and in case of non-compliance bring the matter
to the notice of Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner of Customs
as the case may be”. Since the investigation was not carried out in respect of all
consignments of import of old and used garments, for which weighment slips
were made available it cannot be established beyond doubt that offence has been
committed for all as held in the impugned order. Further, we find that the penal-
ty that has been imposed against the appellant in the impugned order is dispro-
portionate to the penalty imposed. While holding so, we refer and rely on the
decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s decision in the case of R.S.R. Forwarders
v. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi [2018 (364) E.L.T. 541 (Tri. - Del.)], wherein it is
held as under :-
“10. The role of the CHA in the Customs procedure is significant. The
CHA is expected to safeguard the interest of exporter of the goods as well
as the Customs. The adjudicating authority, in his detailed findings, have
concluded that the appellant is guilty of violation of various regulations of
CBLR, 2013. But, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the
view that even though the appellant is guilty, the violations are not so
grave as to justify the revocation of the customs licence. We are of the view
that ends of justice will be met with the forfeiture of security deposit of Rs.
75,000/- and in addition imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.
11. In the result, the impugned order is modified, as above appeal is par-
tially allowed.”
19. The appellant has suffered from the date of suspension of his li-
cence till now which in our opinion is itself sufficient considering the gravity of
offence committed by the appellant. In the circumstances we are of the consid-
ered opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable and liable to be set aside
and accordingly we do so. In result, the appeal is allowed.
(Order pronounced in the open Court on 26-11-2019)

_______

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  196