2014 (3) TMI 993 - HC - Customs

Subletting of Custom House Agent license It was alleged that Tribunal misdirected itself in holding that appellant has sub let his customs house agent license illegally and unauthorizedly in faovur of one Dnyaneshwar Held that - terms and conditions of appointment letter stated that he was not employee, but worked on commission basis Therefore, apart from statements of persons referred to, Dnyaneshwar s own version is not in consonance with stand of appellant Terms, that Dnyaneshwar would be given authority letter for handling documents on behalf of clients coupled with fact that Dnyaneshwar was to be solely responsible for settlement of disputes with statutory authorities, in charge of and maintaining secrecy of bank account goes to show that contract was not of employment, but something else Finding of fact that license has been thus sub let to Dnyaneshwar is therefore, based on materials produced and cannot be said to be perverse in any manner Appeal dismissed Decided against Appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding subletting of customs house agent license.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zone Bench at Mumbai, alleging misdirection in holding that the appellant sublet his customs house agent license to an individual named Dnyaneshwar. The appellant argued that Dnyaneshwar was an employee and not a sub-lessee, as claimed by the Tribunal. The appellant contended that the statements relied upon were not subject to cross-examination, raising substantial questions of law. However, the Court disagreed with the appellant's contentions, stating that the Tribunal's findings were based on factual materials. The Court emphasized that Dnyaneshwar's own version contradicted the appellant's claim of employment, as Dnyaneshwar worked on a commission basis and handled consignments independently. The Court found the terms of the appointment letter inconsistent with an employment contract, indicating a different nature of the agreement. Therefore, the Court held that the Tribunal's conclusion of subletting was supported by evidence and not legally flawed.

The Court clarified that the appeal did not provide grounds for reevaluation of factual findings made by the Tribunal and the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. Both authorities had concurred that Dnyaneshwar was not an employee but worked independently on a commission basis. The Court highlighted Dnyaneshwar's responsibilities, such as handling documents, settling disputes with authorities, and maintaining bank account secrecy, as indicative of a non-employment relationship. The Court concluded that the finding of subletting was based on the evidence presented and not unjustifiable. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that no substantial question of law was raised.