Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2005 (9) TMI 394

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... x bearing No. P-2029 and intimations to the Customs authorities about the appointment of this employee to attend to the Customs and Docks were given by the agent. 2. In the course of their function, one M/s. Al Heena Enterprises, Mumbai sought their services for the clearance of export goods covered by 7 Shipping Bills all dated 16-9-2002 bearing numbers 4886196 to 4886202. On receipt of this job, the employee Mr. Hitesh A. Parmar was asked to attend to the work of Customs clearance. The goods were examined by the Proper Officers of Customs. Samples were drawn and after the necessary checks and finding everything to be in order, out of Customs Charge was given by the Proper Officer. The goods were thereafter handed over to the Airlines an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat the CHA had failed to supervise the said employee and failed to ensure the proper conduct. The Commissioner, on receipt of this report of the Enquiry Officer, apparently conflicting the report, vide an Order dated 29-6-2005, held cancellation of the CHA licence and forfeiture of the security deposit with the Customs made by the CHA to be effected. The Commissioner thus agrees that Hitesh Parmar was an employee as CHA. However, relying on the Enquiry Officer s report, took a view that neither the employee nor the proprietor of the CHA firm exercised due diligence to ascertain the correctness of information as given by the exporter. Therefore the charges, as made out and confirmed by the Enquiry Officer, were held to call for cancellation .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e relationship besides the statement of Hitesh Parmar recorded by D.R.I. Officers. The status of Hitesh Parmar being other than mat of an employee cannot be doubted. (d) As regards failure of supervision, based on various materials, it is on record that the export firm M/s. Al Heena Enterprises had given their job assignment on a letter head containing the old and new address of the appellant was not intimated. However, this new address is recognised by CESTAT in the appeal decided revoking their suspension and from a copy of letter dated 29-11-2002 to the Secretary, the Bombay Customs House Agents Association and letter dated 10-1-2003 to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (P E) (CHA), Mumbai for incorporation of new address, the conc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... issued by the Commissioner of Customs from a client, who is entitled to such information. The goods had been examined, valuation has been done and all the documents have been verified by the department. Hitesh Parmar in his statement dated 12-10-2002 given all details which have not been discussed by the ld. Commissioner. (h) With regard to Vth Article of Charges for violation of Regulation 14(k), the appellants have submitted the Export Register at the time of cross-examination and also given details by its letter dated 10-5-2005. (i) With reference to VIIth Article of Charges for violation of Regulation 14(1), no findings have been given by the ld. Commissioner except stating that the statement record under Section 108 of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Surely, the CHA cannot be having the resources to carry on such an inquiry or is required to conduct the same before undertaking the job in the course of his Agency functions. We find no reason to call for an action on the Agent for the sins, if any, of the exporter, when there is no material to arrive at a conclusion of an interest or gains other than the normal Agency remunerations to be received. 5. In view of the matter, we find no reason to uphold the order of the Commissioner, calling for cancellation of the licence and forefeiture of the security deposit on grounds as arrived at in the impugned order. 6. We find no reasons on part of the CHA who had violated any provisions of CHALR, 1984 for revocation and forefeiture order is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates