2014 (1) TMI 1675 - AT - Customs

Forfeiture of CHA License - Vicarious liability - Whether appellant should not be held responsible for all acts and omissions of its employee in regard to employment, in terms of Regulation 19(8) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulation, 2004 - Essential qualifications - Held that - Regulation also enjoins that the minimum educational qualification of a person intended to be so employed shall be 10 2 or equivalent. In the absence of any requirement enjoined on the CHA to conduct an inquiry into the genuineness of the educational certificates produced by a person intending to be employed with the CHA for assisting it, we find no requirement of any such due diligence by the CHA - impugned order is unsustainable - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability of the appellant for acts and omissions of its employee in relation to employment under Customs House Agents Licensing Regulation, 2004.
2. Forfeiture of security deposit by the appellant for failure to comply with regulations.
3. Validity of the impugned order forfeiting part of the security deposit.
4. Interpretation of Regulations 19(1) and 19(8) regarding educational qualifications and supervision by Custom House Agents (CHA).
5. Comparison with a similar case - Trade Wings Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi.

Analysis:
1. The New Delhi Commissionerate issued a show cause notice to the appellant regarding the liability for acts and omissions of its employee under Regulations 19(8) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulation, 2004. The notice alleged that the appellant failed to comply with the regulations by submitting fake educational certificates for an employee and not ensuring the employee's qualifications met the required standards.

2. Subsequently, an order was passed forfeiting a part of the security deposit furnished by the appellant for the alleged violations of Regulations 19(1) and 19(8). The order stated that the employee did not possess the minimum qualifications as required by Regulation 19(1) and that the submitted educational certificate was fake.

3. The judgment referenced a similar case, Trade Wings Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi, where the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Customs House Agent due to lack of mala fide intention and the absence of a requirement for CHAs to verify the educational qualifications of their employees. The Tribunal in Trade Wings emphasized that Regulation 19(8) mandates supervision by CHAs but does not require verification of educational qualifications by them.

4. Regulation 19(1) allows a Custom House Agent to employ individuals with a minimum educational qualification of 10+2 or equivalent. The judgment highlighted that there is no explicit requirement for CHAs to verify the authenticity of educational certificates presented by prospective employees, indicating no obligation for due diligence in this regard.

5. Drawing from the Trade Wings case, the Tribunal in the present judgment deemed the impugned order unsustainable and quashed it, emphasizing that CHAs are not obligated to verify educational qualifications and that the supervision requirement under Regulation 19(8) does not extend to verifying such qualifications. No costs were awarded in this decision.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues addressed, the legal interpretations made, and the reasoning behind the decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI.