9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obtaining a Power of Attorney approval from the Proper officer of Custom House. Later, he changed his employment and joined M/s. Arista Skyship Agencies with their Head Office at Cochin who are also licenced CHA. He was employed as Director at the Madras office. Since, he had already passed the examination under Regulation 9, he applied for an approval of PoA under his new employment by Chennai Custom House. After prolonged correspondence, the ld. Commissioner issued a notice requiring the appellant to show cause why his request should not be rejected, which was followed by the impugned order-in-original. 3. Heard the ld. Consultant, Shri S. Murugappan for the appellant. He argued that in the first place, the entire proceedings resting with the impugned OIO were without jurisdiction under law. This was because the appellant had qualified in the examination and had been working as an authorised employee in M/s. Jeena Co., under the Custom House Regulations, 1983 and there is no provision to refuse the Power of Attorney after an employee has passed the examination. The Regulations give the authorities only the power to suspend or revoke or cancel the CHA licence, which is not the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iven for issue of a PoA. 7. Heard the ld. SDR, Shri R. Victor Thiagaraj. He argued that the PoA was denied in the impugned OIO in view of the appellant s questionable activities in the past as is very clearly explained in the impugned OIO. He referred to the role played by the appellant in the case of M/s. Kamakshi Agency and in particular a letter dated 3-3-1994 addressed to the Collector of Customs, Madras which clearly shows that the appellant s own employer has no faith in him. He stressed that under the Custom House Agent scheme, an employee thereof cannot function properly unless good faith exists. He further reiterated paras 13 14 of the OIO. 8. The ld. Consultant, Shri Murugappan rebutted these arguments by pointing out that the case of renewal of licence of M/s. Kamakshi Agency is pending in the Hon ble High Court on reference from this Tribunal and is a separate issue. Therefore, it has no bearing to this subject appeal. 9. At this point, the ld. SDR rose to point out that the observations of this Hon ble Tribunal in their order dated 1-11-1996 is of great relevance as it has been held that no PoA should be given in future in view of antecedents. 10. The ld. Con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through the Customs." 13. Applying Regulation 20 to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the appellant had been employed first by M/s. Jeena Co., and thereafter by M/s. Kamakshi Agency and now with M/s. Arista Skyship Agencies Ltd. I also find that the appellant Shri D. Sukumaran had in fact passed the examination under Regulation 9 while in the employment of M/s. Jeena Co., and therefore there was no need to appear for such an examination again in terms of Regulation 20(4). Therefore, the only issue to be decided is whether the designated Asstt. Collector of Customs or the Collector himself had rightly refused to approve the PoA under Regulation 20 on the ground that the antecedents of the appellant were not encouraging. On a plain reading of Regulation 20(2), it is clear that the Asstt. Collector of Customs designated by the Collector (in this case the issue has been decided by the Collector himself) shall (emphasis supplied) take into consideration the antecedents and any other information pertaining to the character of such person. This shows that the said Customs Officer has no discretion to disregard consideration of the antecedents as well as the character ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person in charges of running the concerns by name of M/s. G.D. Enterprises and M/s. Rekha Overseas both at Madras? Ans. : I know nothing about those concerns or as to their proprietors. For little money, I signed documents of clearance at the instances of Sukumaran. Sukumaran assured me that there would not be any problem and in the event of there being any problem he would take care. This made me to believe signing and I signed the documents. Q. 10 Do you know or aware of any customs problem relating to import/ export clearances that had taken place in the name of G.D. Enterprises and Rekha Overseas? Ans. : I was told by Sukumaran that there are certain problems and that DRI is investigating the matter and he had asked me that I should appear and explain my position as CHA. As already stated, though I have signed clearance documents I know nothing about the same. Everything was looked after by Sukumaran. Question No. 15 thereof and the answer thereto also reads as under :- Q. 15 How is that with long experience in customs clearance matters you have chosen to sign blank Bills of Entry/Shipping Bills in the name of Rekha Overseas and G.D. Enterprises as CHA on many occasio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hi which did not reflect the transactions in the correct light in infringement of the condition that a CHA licence is not transferable. This activity of the appellant again clearly brings out his antecedents in a poor light. It is significant to note that he has confessed about these activities in his own statement given voluntarily under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. 19. In view of the discussions above, and taking into consideration the legal position that the Customs Authorities are obliged under law to enquire into the antecedents of the character of the applicant/employee, and therefore Regulation 20 itself gives the Customs authorities the power to deny such an approval in case these antecedents are found to be questionable in nature, therefore, the argument of the ld. Consultant that the entire decision in the impugned OIO is without jurisdiction is not correct. 20. I also find that from the discussion above, it is clear that the ld. Com- missioner of Customs has not given arbitratory or subjective conclusion regar-ding questionable antecedents of the appellants and that he was well within his rights therefore to deny the appellant the approval regarding the PoA. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
