2011 (5) TMI 397 - AT - Customs

Customs House Agent - Regulation 19 of the CHALR 2004 - The Customs House Agent shall exercise such supervision as may be necessary to ensure the proper conduct of any such employees in the transaction of business as agents and be held responsible for all acts or omissions of his employees in regard to their employment.- It is very clear that the CHA should exercise such supervisions as necessary to ensure the proper conduct of such employees. The argument of the appellant that they are not responsible for the conduct or antecedents of the person sought to be appointed to act on behalf of the exporter is not acceptable. The appellants cannot be exonerated on this count - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against prohibition to work as Customs House Agent under CHALR, 2004.

Analysis:
1. The case involves an appeal filed by M/s. Kunal Travels (Cargo) against the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla's order prohibiting them from working as a Customs House Agent at Kandla and MP & SEZ under Regulation 21 of Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 (CHALR). The prohibition was due to the fraudulent export of non-basmati rice by another entity through M/s. Kunal Travels (Cargo), which was found to be in contravention of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2011. The Commissioner found that M/s. Kunal Travels (Cargo) had not fulfilled their obligations under Regulation 13D and Regulation 19 of CHALR, 2004, and the omission and commission in the export amounted to misconduct as per Regulation 20(1)(c) of CHALR.

2. The appellant argued that the Commissioner's conclusion was erroneous and unsubstantiated, as there was no evidence to suggest that they were aware of the fraudulent export. The appellant also contended that Regulation 19(2) did not impose a burden to consider the antecedents of the person sought to be appointed as a Custom House Agent. They relied on a previous order by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in a similar case, where the suspension was revoked due to procedural lapses.

3. Regulation 19 of CHALR, 2004 mandates that the Customs House Agent shall supervise their employees to ensure proper conduct in business transactions. The appellant's argument that they were not responsible for the conduct of the appointed person was deemed unacceptable, and they could not be exonerated on that basis.

4. The order of the Delhi Tribunal cited by the appellant was found not applicable to the present case, as it dealt with procedural delays and norms violation, not the culpability of the Customs House Agent. The Tribunal clarified that it was not passing any opinion on the CHA's culpability.

5. The Member (Technical) of the Appellate Tribunal, after considering the arguments and facts presented, found no merits in the appellant's case and rejected the appeal. The stay petition was also disposed of accordingly.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal points, arguments presented, regulatory obligations, and the final decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal.