9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order of forfeiture of the security deposit. 2. Alleged contravention of Regulations 14(a), 14(k), and 20(7) by the appellants. 3. Plea for reduction of the forfeiture amount. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Order of Forfeiture of the Security Deposit: The appellants contested the validity of the Collector's order, arguing that Regulation 21(1) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984, does not empower the Collector to order only forfeiture of the security deposit without either suspending or revoking the licence. They emphasized the word "and" used in the regulation, suggesting that forfeiture must accompany suspension or revocation. However, the Tribunal interpreted Regulation 21(1) to mean that the Collector has the discretion to suspend or revoke the licence and also order forfeiture of the security deposit. The Tribunal noted the absence of the conjunction "or" between "suspension" and "revocation" and the use of "also," indicating that forfeiture is an additional measure, not an independent one. Despite this, the Tribunal acknowledged the special circumstances where simultaneous proceedings resulted in both suspension of the licence and forfeiture of the security deposit on the same day by the same Collector. Thus, the Tribunal rejected the plea of invalidity, considering the factual position of concurrent orders. 2. Alleged Contravention of Regulations 14(a), 14(k), and 20(7): - Regulation 14(a) and 20(7): The appellants were charged with their employee, Mr. Gul Malkani, attending to the clearance of baggage without proper authorization, and the CHA failing to supervise their employee effectively. The Tribunal found that Mr. Malkani, an employee of the appellants, was unauthorizedly clearing baggage forms in the Baggage Hall. The appellants admitted Mr. Malkani's employment and presence at the Air Cargo Complex but claimed he was merely assisting the authorized person. The Tribunal upheld the Collector's findings that Mr. Malkani's actions and the lack of supervision by the proprietor, Mr. Naresh Kothari, constituted a contravention of the regulations. - Regulation 14(k): The appellants were also charged with failing to maintain proper records and accounts of 104 baggage forms. The Tribunal noted the appellants' admission that their employees would submit documents "according to the convenience in the office" and that accounts were prepared by the Accountant "as and when" he came to the office. This irregular maintenance of records was deemed a clear violation of Regulation 14(k), and the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Collector's findings. 3. Plea for Reduction of the Forfeiture Amount: The appellants argued that the forfeiture of the entire security deposit was too harsh and sought a reduction. However, the Tribunal referred to Regulation 21(1), which mandates forfeiture of the entire security deposit without any discretion for partial forfeiture. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Paras Laminates (Pvt.) Ltd., emphasizing that the Tribunal's inherent powers are limited to making statutory provisions effective and cannot override explicit regulatory provisions. Considering the contraventions and the concurrent suspension of the licence in another proceeding, the Tribunal found no justifiable ground to reduce the forfeiture amount. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the Collector's order, rejecting the appeal and confirming the forfeiture of the entire security deposit of Rs. 25,000/-. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellants' arguments regarding the validity of the order, the contraventions of the regulations, or the plea for reduction of the forfeiture amount.
|
