9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 regarding liability of Customs House Agent (CHA) and Managing Director, imposition of penalty on firm and its partners, applicability of precedents from various High Courts and Tribunals.
Interpretation of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004: The advocate for the applicants argued that the impugned order lacked material linking the CHA and its Managing Director to the overvaluation of goods by the exporter. He cited a Tribunal order and a High Court decision to support the contention that penalty on the partnership firm precludes separate penalty on partners. In response, the DR for the respondents referenced the Regulations and Customs Act, emphasizing the obligations of the CHA and the liability of the firm and its partner, citing relevant case law. Contradictory Judgments and Request for Adjournment: The advocate for the appellants mentioned conflicting judgments to the one relied upon by the DR, seeking time to review the Delhi High Court decision. The request for adjournment was denied, stating that lack of awareness of cited judgments is not a valid ground for delay. Liability of Principal and Agent under Customs Act, 1962: The provisions of Section 147 of the Customs Act, 1962 were discussed to establish the liability of the principal and agent, emphasizing that actions by an agent are deemed to be with the knowledge and consent of the principal unless proven otherwise. Precedents and Imposition of Penalty: The Delhi High Court ruling clarified that a CHA can be penalized for misdeclaration, even if not explicitly mentioned in the Regulations. The judgment highlighted the responsibility of the CHA and its employee in cases of misconduct. Additionally, the Bombay High Court and Kerala High Court decisions were referenced regarding penalties on firms and partners, with emphasis on the binding nature of High Court decisions over Tribunal rulings. Decision and Disposal of Applications: The Tribunal found no merit in the applicants' contentions regarding separate penalties on the firm and its partners. While waiver for partner penalties was considered, no prima facie case was established for waiving the firm's deposit amount. Financial hardship due to license suspension was deemed insufficient for discretion under the Customs Act, leading to the directive for the firm to deposit the amount within 12 weeks. Compliance Report: A compliance report was scheduled for 9-9-2009 to monitor adherence to the Tribunal's directives.
|
