9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 924 - AT - CustomsRevocation of CHA License - forfeiture of the security deposit - contravention of Regulation 13(a) - held that - There is no allegation made by the appellant as urged before us that proper procedure of inquiry was not followed or there has been any violation of the principles of natural justice either by the Inquiry Officer or by the adjudicating authority. The only contention is that the evidence adduced by the appellant has not been properly appreciated and the punishment of revocation for the contravention of the CHALR, if any, is grossly disproportionate to the offence committed. - As regards the charge of contravention of Regulation 13(n) of non-discharge of their obligations with utmost speed and efficiency, Shri C.H. Menon in his confessional statement has admitted to non-verification of the correctness of the classification declared in the bills of entry handled by Mr. Ashley. Later on it was found that M/s. J.M. Traders and M/s. Kirmi Expo had misdeclared the classification of laminated sheets imported by them and this position has been admitted by the importers themselves before the Settlement Commission. If that be so, the appellant CHA could not be said to have discharged his duties and obligations with any efficiency at all. It is thus evident that the appellant has been grossly negligent in the discharge of his statutory functions. As regards the charge of contravention of Regulation 13(k), it is an admitted fact on record that the charged CHA did not maintain any import or export register showing details of the consignments handled by them and the dockets maintained by them were incomplete and they did not have the authority letters in many cases and the CHA delivery challans for having delivered the goods to the importers after clearance by the Customs. A case of sub-letting of licence by CHA, obtaining Customs pass for non-employees, removal of goods without obtaining authorisation from importers was considered by the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in OTA Kandla Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (3) TMI 801 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT . The Hon ble High Court upheld the contention of the Revenue that sub-letting amounted to transfer of CHA licence and refused to interfere with the punishment of revocation of CHA licence awarded by the Commissioner of Customs, the Licensing authority. - Further decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Worldwide Cargo Movers 2006 (11) TMI 281 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT followed - no reason to interfere with the decision of the Adjudicating authority - Decided against the appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Sub-letting of CHA licence for monetary consideration. 2. Undertaking Customs clearance transactions without proper authorizations. 3. Not advising clients to comply with the Customs Act. 4. Non-discharge of duties with utmost speed and efficiency. 5. Non-maintenance of proper records. 6. Lack of proper supervision over employees. Detailed Analysis: 1. Sub-letting of CHA Licence for Monetary Consideration: The appellant CHA was found to have sub-let its licence to Mr. Eugene Ashley, who used it independently for monetary gains. This was admitted by the CHA's Manager and Director in their statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The statements revealed that Mr. Ashley handled the majority of the CHA's import transactions and paid the CHA firm per container for using their licence. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the Licensing Authority that this contravened Regulation 12 of CHALR, 2004. 2. Undertaking Customs Clearance Transactions Without Proper Authorizations: The CHA firm admitted that they did not insist on authorization letters in all cases and allowed Mr. Ashley to handle transactions independently. This was found to be a partial contravention of Regulation 13(a) as the CHA did not have proper authorizations for all transactions. The Tribunal found no fault in the Inquiry Officer's conclusion on this charge. 3. Not Advising Clients to Comply with the Customs Act: The CHA firm admitted that they did not interact with the importers and thus could not have advised them on compliance with the Customs Act. This was a clear contravention of Regulation 13(d), and the Tribunal upheld the findings of the Inquiry Officer and Licensing Authority on this charge. 4. Non-Discharge of Duties with Utmost Speed and Efficiency: The CHA firm admitted to not verifying the correctness of the classification in the bills of entry, which led to misclassification and undervaluation of imported goods. This was found to be a contravention of Regulation 13(n), as the CHA did not discharge its duties efficiently. The Tribunal upheld this finding. 5. Non-Maintenance of Proper Records: The CHA firm did not maintain proper records of transactions, including import/export registers and authority letters. This was a contravention of Regulation 13(k), and the Tribunal upheld the findings on this charge. 6. Lack of Proper Supervision Over Employees: The CHA firm allowed Mr. Ashley and Mr. Martin Joseph to handle transactions independently without proper supervision. This was a contravention of Regulation 19(8), and the Tribunal upheld the findings on this charge. Additional Points: - The appellant's argument that their statements were made under duress was rejected as they did not retract their statements before the same authority who recorded them. - The Tribunal emphasized that the CHALR proceedings are independent of the Customs Act proceedings and the findings in one do not affect the other. - The Tribunal referred to several High Court judgments to support the proportionality of the punishment of revocation of the CHA licence, highlighting that such decisions are within the discretion of the disciplinary authority and should not be interfered with unless they are shockingly disproportionate or mala fide. Conclusion: The Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, upholding the revocation of the CHA licence and forfeiture of the security deposit. The decision emphasized the importance of maintaining discipline and compliance within the customs area and supported the disciplinary actions taken by the Commissioner of Customs.
|
