9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (2) TMI 743 - AT - CustomsSuspension of Customs House Agent s Licence - Held that - There is no dispute that authorization was not obtained directly from the exporters but only through M/s. Max Shipping Services, Freight Forwarders and Broker. Therefore, this charge of violation of Regulation 13(a) of the CHA Licence Regulation, 2004 stands proved. However, the appellant is correct in contending that as soon as they noticed the discrepancy it was brought to the knowledge of the authorities. Therefore, we agree with the appellants that they have not contravened the provisions of Regulation 13(d) and 13(e). The suspension order will be operative only up to 31-3-2008 and is to be lifted w.e.f. that date - decided partly in favor of appellant.
Issues:
- Confirmation of suspension of CHA license - Violation of Regulation 13(a) of CHA License Regulation, 2004 - Alleged violation of Regulations 13(d) and 13(e) - Discrepancy in declaration of goods - Timing of suspension order Confirmation of Suspension of CHA License: The judgment pertains to an appeal against the confirmation of the suspension of a Customs House Agent (CHA) license by the Commissioner of Customs. The suspension was based on the grounds that the appellant did not obtain authorization directly from the exporters and failed to exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of information provided to clients, leading to the export of banned items under false pretenses. Violation of Regulation 13(a) of CHA License Regulation, 2004: The tribunal confirmed the charge of violation of Regulation 13(a) as the authorization was not obtained directly from the exporters but through an intermediary. This finding was crucial in upholding the suspension of the CHA license. Alleged Violation of Regulations 13(d) and 13(e): Regarding the alleged violation of Regulations 13(d) and 13(e) for not reporting discrepancies in the goods declaration to customs authorities, the appellants claimed they had promptly notified the authorities upon detecting the discrepancy. Testimonies from Assistant and CHA supported the appellants' claim that the detection was brought to the authorities' attention without delay. As a result, the tribunal concluded that there was no contravention of Regulations 13(d) and 13(e). Discrepancy in Declaration of Goods: The discrepancy in the declaration of goods, where furniture wood was actually red sander wood, was promptly reported by the appellants upon discovery. The timely disclosure of this information to the authorities played a significant role in the tribunal's decision regarding the alleged violations. Timing of Suspension Order: The tribunal noted a significant delay between the detection of the alleged offense and the issuance of the suspension order. Considering this delay and the fact that only the violation of Regulation 13(a) was upheld, the tribunal deemed the suspension from January 2007 until the judgment date as a sufficient penalty. The suspension order was to be lifted on 31st March 2008, allowing the CHA to resume operations from 1st April 2008. In conclusion, the tribunal disposed of the appeal, allowing the CHA to continue business from a specified date while emphasizing that the department was not restricted from pursuing regular proceedings under the regulations.
|
