9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Alleged transfer of license, lack of due diligence in cargo inspection, unauthorized persons signing documents, excess charges, revocation of license.
Alleged transfer of license: The appellant, a Custom House Agent (CHA), faced charges of transferring the license to an unauthorized person, Shailesh Varu, without notifying the Department. The enquiry officer upheld the allegations, leading to the revocation of the CHA license by the Commissioner. Lack of due diligence in cargo inspection: The appellant was accused of failing to exercise due diligence in verifying the export cargo's status and ensuring document accuracy. However, the Tribunal found that the evidence did not conclusively prove these allegations, as the inspection report was signed by the jurisdictional Superintendent without indicating connivance by the appellant. Unauthorized persons signing documents: The charges related to unauthorized individuals signing documents were not fully substantiated. While Shailesh Varu, an employee on record, was involved in signing documents, there was no clear evidence that the appellant knowingly permitted this action or was aware of any fraudulent activities. Excess charges: The appellant was found to have charged an amount per container exceeding the specified limit, as per the Public Notice issued by the Collector of Customs. This charge was upheld, along with the finding that the application signed by Shailesh Varu was impermissible due to the excess charges. Revocation of license: The Tribunal acknowledged that revocation of a license is a severe punishment, impacting the individual's livelihood. Despite concerns regarding Shailesh Varu's actions, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's trust in him did not warrant complete license revocation. The appellant's license was suspended for three years, deemed a sufficient penalty, with the condition that Shailesh Varu should not be involved in Customs-related matters for the appellant. Separate Judgement: The Judges set aside the revocation order and allowed the appeal, considering the punishment already endured by the appellant and the lack of direct involvement or knowledge on the appellant's part regarding the actions of Shailesh Varu.
|
