1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.52 OF 2009 Commissioner of Customs (General) New Customs House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 ...Appellant. v. M/s. S.P.Pawar & Sons CHA No.11/201, Gokul Building, Room No.203, 2nd floor, 80-A Baroda Street, Masjid Bunder (E), Mumbai 400 009 ...Respondents. Mr.Suresh Kumar, adv. For the Appellant. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 8th July , 2009 P.C.-Order: 1 The Commissioner of Customs (General) Mumbai Zone I passed an Order-in-Original No.26/07-08 dated 30.10.007 and thereby revoked CHA licence of the respondents under CHA Licensing Regulations, 2004. That order was challenged by the respondents in Appeal No.C/264/08-Mumbai. Appeal came to be allowed by the CESTAT by the order dated 1.10.2008. Order of the CESTAT is challenged by the Appellant/Revenue. 2 2 To state in brief, an enquiry was initiated against the respondents as per the Article of Charge consisting of in all three charges. It was alleged that the respondents had an unofficial working partner by name Ramdas Dormale in carrying out business of CHA and majority of work has been handled by said Ramdas. Secondly, it was alleged that CHA was required to advise his clients to comply with the provisions of the Act and in case of non-compliance, he was to bring the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs but the respondents had failed to abide by this condition as he had provided silent co-operation in clearance and transport of smuggled goods. Thirdly, it was alleged that he had failed to maintain records and accounts in the prescribed form and manner and to submit them for inspection whenever required. The Commissioner of Customs while passing the Order in Original accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer, holding him guilty of all the charges. 2 The Appellate Tribunal, however, rejected all these findings after minutely considering the evidence and material in respect of each of 3 the charges. The Tribunal observed that only charge, which could be established is regarding the change in the constitutional format and allowing Ramdas to act as an authorised signatory but according to the Tribunal, the charges framed nowhere stated that he had acted as an authorised signatory and the finding was based merely on the observations made by the Commissioner, which are not based on the enquiry. 3 After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant at some length and after perusal of the charges, enquiry report and the findings of the Commissioner as well as the Appellate Tribunal, we find that no question of law is involved in the present matter. The Appellate Tribunal has given reasons for rejecting the findings of the Commissioner. Appeal is based merely on the appreciation of facts and, therefore, we see no reason to admit the appeal. 4 In the result, appeal stands dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)