9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (4) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the earlier employment as a Power of Attorney holder of another CHA namely Shri Kamakshi Agency which had led to the suspension of that CHA s Licence. 2. Vide this Tribunal s Single Bench Final Order No. 568/98, dated 10-8-1998 it had been held that in view of the verification of antecedence provided under Regulation 20 of the said Regulations, the refusal to approve the Power of Attorney did not suffer from any infirmity and the appeal had been dismissed. Against this Final Order, appellant had submitted an application for Rectification of mistake. On consideration thereof vide Single Bench Miscellaneous Order No. 493/98, dated 13-8-1998 the said Final Order was recalled and the appeal was ordered to be listed in its turn for re-consideration of the entire matter before a Two-Member Bench. Hence the matter now stands before us on such recall. 3. Heard Shri S. Murugappan, learned Advocate for the appellants. He submits as follows :- (a) Any decision on this issue has to be within the ambit of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. (b) Regulation 9 thereof provides that a person who qualifies in an examination held under the said Regulation shall beco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocate submits that Regulation 20 concerns a lower class of persons who are required to assist a CHA namely employees of a CHA like Clerks, Messengers, etc., who are to assist the CHA in his work. He submits that these lower category employees do not have the right to act as an unqualified agent of the CHA and therefore cannot sign any customs documents including Bill of Entry on behalf of the CHA or in any other manner by the CHA under law. He further submits that even the Examination which is conducted to approve such lower category employees of CHA is different in nature and content than that which is required to be successfully passed by a Power of Attorney holder. Therefore on both these counts Regulation 20 cannot be read into Regulation 18 as both stand on independent footing. Learned Counsel further submitted that under sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 18, the only burden that the law puts upon a CHA is that any change in such a person acting as an agent of the CHA shall be communicated by them to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. He submits in this case there has been no change at all and the appellant is the one and only new Power of Attorney holder for the CHA at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same Regulations. He also refers to Final Order No. 1776/96, dated 1-11-1996 wherein in Para 12 thereof the Hon ble Tribunal had observed that the clandestine export in that case had taken place with the present appellant s connivance. The Tribunal had also observed that the appellants in that case shall conduct business personally in future and not appoint any Power of Attorney holder. Therefore learned SDR submits that there is no infirmity in the Order-in-Original impugned and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. At this point learned Advocate rose to rebut as follows :- (a) He submits that the Reference Application mentioned by the learned SDR was moved before the appropriate authority while he was in the employment of the Customs Department as an Assistant Commissioner. However he has since ceased to be an Officer of the Customs Department having taken retirement and now has duly enrolled as a member of the Bar. He is well within the rights to appear for any litigation before this Tribunal. There is also no barring in the CEGAT Procedure Rules that an Ex-Officer of Customs cannot appear before the Tribunal. On the contrary, experienced Customs Officers, after their re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied in the examination conducted under Regulation 9 of these Regulations, he is clothed with the legal qualifications to engage himself in the work relating to the clearance of goods through Customs on behalf of a firm or a company licensed under Regulation 10. (b) It is not disputed at all that the present appellant has so qualified the examination and also that he has not chosen to engage himself on behalf of more than one such CHA. (c) After he was appointed as an agent by M/s. Arista Skyship Agencies who are holders of a CHA Licence at Cochin Custom House, they had intimated to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs at Chennai Custom House that the appellants had been invested with the Power of Attorney to act on behalf of M/s. Arista Skyship Agencies at Chennai Custom House in terms of the said Regulation 18. Therefore, we find that both the appellant as well as M/s Arista Skyship Agencies have fully complied with all the legal requirements of Regulation 18(1) and Regulation 18(2) in this behalf. (d) We further find that Regulation 20 concerns employment of persons to assist a Custom House agent in his work. A plain reading of that Regulation, as compared to the provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
