2011 (7) TMI 115 - AT - Customs

Suspension of the CHA licence - Forfeited the security deposit - Regulation 14(a), 14(b) and Regulation 14(d) and 14(l) as well as Regulation 20(7) have been violated by the CHA - The CHA, evidently as admitted by Shri Anbu, employee of M/s. Asian Shipping Services, Shri Kumar, sole proprietor of the CHA firm did not have any knowledge of the exporter and obtained photo identity card for Shri Anbu of M/s. Asian Shipping Services - In as much as Shri Anbu is not an employee of the CHA the CHA has failed to ensure proper conduct of and is held responsible for all acts of commission and omission of Shri Anbu in regard to his functions on behalf of the CHA - Hence the I.O s finding that the charge under this regulation was not conclusively proved is incorrect and the same is not acceptable - The suspension period has also come to end long back - The action of forfeiture of security deposit, in the light of the findings of the Commissioner, cannot be faulted - Appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Summary

Issues:
Suspension of CHA license and forfeiture of security deposit based on non-compliance with regulations.

Analysis:
The Commissioner of Customs ordered the suspension of the CHA license issued to the appellants for two weeks and forfeited the security deposit of Rs.25,000 based on non-compliance with various regulations. The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority provided clear reasoning for concluding that several regulations were violated by the CHA. The violations included failure to comply with Regulation 14(a), 14(b), 14(d), 14(l), and 20(7).

Violation of Regulation 14(a):
The Inquiry Officer relied on a CESTAT judgment to establish that mere signature by the importer is not sufficient for compliance with the obligation of the CHA to get authorization. Since only the CHA had signed the Shipping Bill copies, the violation of Regulation 14(a) was upheld by the Tribunal.

Violation of Regulation 14(b):
The CHA admitted the violation during the F.H., leading to the conclusion that the failure to comply with Regulation 14(b) was proven.

Violation of Regulation 14(d), 14(l), and 20(7):
The Inquiry Officer found that there was no material to disprove the CHA's claim that he had properly advised his clients. However, discrepancies were highlighted, such as obtaining signatures from unconnected individuals and misdeclaration of values. The Tribunal disagreed with the Inquiry Officer's findings and held that the charges under these regulations were proved.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no convincing arguments to overturn the findings and noted that the suspension period had already ended. Upholding the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the action of forfeiting the security deposit based on the Commissioner's findings was justified.