Page 170 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

80 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373
prohibited item. Therefore the Revenue initiated action against the
exporter and also against the respondent/licensee. Initially the Cus-
toms Broker Licence of the respondent/licensee was suspended by
order dated 2-3-2007 by the office of the Commissioner of Customs
of Chennai Commissionerate, Customs House, Rajaji Bhawan,
Chennai. However the said suspension order of the licence of the
respondent was revoked by further order of the Commissioner of
Customs, Chennai, dated 25-4-2007. The reason for such revocation
of suspension of the licence was that, the suspension of licence was
made after eight months and therefore since it was belatedly made,
taking clue from decisions of the higher Courts of law, such an ac-
tion claimed to have been taken by the Revenue, thereby the sus-
pension of Customs Broker licence of the respondent was revoked
accordingly.
(v) Thereafter on 15-5-2007, the Appellant/Revenue issued show cause
notice under CHALR, 2004, where the following show cause was
sought for :
“9. Hence, the CHA is called upon to show cause to Shri A.
Kalyanasundaram, Asst. Commissioner of Customs, Customs
House, No. 60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001 who has been
appointed as the Inquiry Officer in this regard in terms of
Regulation 23 of CHALR 1984 as to why the licence should not
be cancelled and/or security deposited by them forfeited un-
der Regulation 21(1)(b) of CHALR 1984 for non-compliance of
the above said obligations. Written representations, if any,
should reach the Inquiry Officer within 45 days from the date
of receipt of this notice. They are also informed that their reply
accompanied with documents on which they may rely upon,
should reach the Inquiry Officer within the stipulated time. If
no reply is received, it will be construed that they have no ex-
planations to offer and the case will be decided on the basis of
evidence available on records.
10. This notice is issued under Regulation 23 of CHALR 1984
which were framed in terms of Section 146 of Customs Act,
1962 without prejudice to any other action that may be initiat-
ed against them under Customs Law or any other law for the
time being force in the Union of India.”
(vi) Pursuant to the show cause notice, adjudication was conducted and
after adjudication, the Revenue, i.e., the Licensing Authority, name-
ly the Commissioner of Customs (Port-Import), Customs House, Ra-
jaji Salai, Chennai - 1 passed the Order-in-Original on 28-5-2012,
whereby the authority chose not to revoke the licence of the re-
spondent/licensee, but only imposed penalty on the respondent by
forfeiting the security deposit of Rs. 25,000/- alone. Since the said
order of imposing of penalty passed in Order-in-Original, dated 28-
5-2012 was not in proportion with the proven charges/violations on
the part of the respondent/licensee, the Revenue felt aggrieved over
the said lenient view taken by the licensing Authority in not revok-
ing the Customs Broker licence of the respondent and decided to
prefer appeal against the Order-in-Original, dated 28-5-2012 before
the CESTAT under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. Accord-
ingly such appeal was filed by the Revenue, which was decided by

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  170