9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved: Appeal against revocation of CHA licence under CHA Licensing Regulations, 2004.
Article of Charge-I: Violation of Regulation 13(b) of CHALR, 2004 by not transacting business through an employee duly approved by statutory authorities. Changes in partnership not intimated to department, leading to manipulated partnerships. Article of Charge-II: Violation of Regulation 13(d) of CHALR, 2004 by failing to advise client to comply with provisions of the Act. Failure to produce proper records for goods imported under advance licences, aiding in diversion of goods. Article of Charge-III: Violation of Regulation 13(k) of CHALR, 2004 by failing to maintain records as directed by Deputy Commissioner of Customs. Failure to keep delivery instructions and maintaining manipulated transport documents. Summary: The Commissioner confirmed all charges against the CHA, including violations of regulations regarding employee authorization, compliance advising, and record maintenance. However, the appellate tribunal found that the CHA's actions did not amount to aiding and abetting in the diversion of goods, as they were not aware of the manipulation by the importer. The tribunal set aside the revocation of the licence, instead ordering forfeiture of the security deposit as a penalty for the technical breaches identified. The appeal was partly allowed, emphasizing the importance of proper record-keeping and compliance with regulatory requirements for CHAs.
|
