Case Law Details
D.S. Cargo Agency Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)
No doubt, there is no document on record as provided by the Department, burden to prove otherwise rests upon the Department but it is settled principle of law that the appellants admission are the best proof which need no further proof. Hence, the burden need not to be discharged anymore by the Department in the cases of admissions by the concerned. It was observed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Jasjeet Singh Marwaha vs. Union of India reported as [MANU/DE/1201/2009] that CHA’s licence can be suspended based on confession made under Section 108 of Act, 1962 provided it is voluntary and statement is truthful and is not result of such inducement, threat or promise as mentioned in section 24 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the present case, there is no retraction by the appellant of the said statement nor it is the submission before us. We have no reason to ignore the said admission.
Once there is acknowledged and admitted violation of CBLR Regulations, the Revenue has the option to follow the discipline governing the Customs House Agents and as such, the Commissioner of Customs is empowered to revoke the license of Customs House Agent and also to forfeit his security if such agent fails to comply with the provisions of Regulation or gets involved in the Act which would amount to mis-conduct/ offence under the Act. The concealment by the appellant about the act of commission of criminal offence as that of fraud from the Customs authorities is held to be an act as that of forfeiting the entire purpose of the licence which was given in favour of the appellant. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise vs. H B Cargo Services reported as [MANU/AP/0060/2011] that in disciplinary matters, Commissioner is responsible for happenings in Customs area, and for discipline to be maintained, if he takes a decision necessary for that purpose, CESTAT would, ordinarily, not interfere on the basis of its own notions of the difficulties like to be faced by the CHA or their employees. Decision is best left to the disciplinary authority save in exceptional cases where punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate or is malafide. Interference with punishment imposed would be justified only when it shocks conscience of CESTAT. No indulgence can be shown to persons indulging in acts of corruption. Punishment imposed on Respondent, by Commissioner of Customs, of revocation of their license, when viewed in light of grave and serious acts of misconduct held established, was held justified.
In view of the entire above discussion and relying upon the above decision, we are of the opinion that there is no irregularity committed by the Adjudicating Authority below while revoking the license of appellant.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT DELHI ORDER
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
