9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Appeal against forfeiture of deposit by CHA firm for irregularity in obtaining authorization from exporter, dealing with unknown client, cash remuneration, and signature on shipping bill. Contention of Department for cancellation of CHA's license due to seizure of narcotic drug with similar markings.
In this case, the Department filed an appeal against the impugned order where the Commissioner decided that the forfeiture of the CHA firm's deposit and the extension period served as sufficient punishment for the irregularity of not obtaining authorization from the exporter regarding a consignment. The Department contended that the CHA had engaged with an unknown client, accepted cash remuneration, and signed shipping documents without the exporter's signature. The Department further argued for the cancellation of the CHA's license due to the seizure of a narcotic drug from a package with similar markings to one handled by the CHA. Upon considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had already addressed the issue of drug seizure in detail in a previous order, where it was clarified that the CHA was not involved. The CHA's explanation for signing documents without authorization, citing an impending Bandh and employee verification of consignment contents, was accepted by the Commissioner. Additionally, the enquiry report only proved the CHA's failure to obtain authorization from the exporter as alleged under CHALR provisions. The Tribunal, based on the Commissioner's observations in the order-in-original regarding the CHA's role in the drug case and the current consignment, along with the sole proven omission of not obtaining authorization, concluded that there was no reason to interfere with the order. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, upholding the Commissioner's decision regarding the CHA's irregularities and the appropriate punishment imposed.
|
