9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Ascending Impex, Chennai (Exporter) in April, 2005. It was also noticed that Red Sanderswood was attempted to be exported in the guise of natural slate stone under those Shipping Bills. As part of investigations into the export made under the Shipping Bill filed by the CHA, the DRI recorded statements of (1) Shri B. Muralibabu, Director of the appellant-company, (2) Shri K. Mohan, Proprietor of M/s. Overseas Cargoways, (3) Shri Venkatesalu alias M. Venkatesan, Partner of M/s. Prime India Logistics and (4) Shri Elanchezhian, Clerk, M/s. Prime India Logistics. From these statements, it appeared to the investigating agency of the department that the CHA had colluded with the exporter and Shri Elanchezhian for smuggling of Red Sanderswo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further called upon to appear before the Commissioner of Customs (Port-Imports), Customs House, No. 60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai on any working day in the month of September, 2005 for making representation, if any, against the said order of suspension of his CHA Licence and Personal Hearing in the matter . Pursuant to the above notice, the CHA made written submissions to the Commissioner and their advocate was personally heard by him. The CHA denied all charges except the one of contravention of Regulation 13(b). Learned Commissioner, after considering the submissions and examining the statements recorded by the investigators, arrived at the conclusion that the CHA had failed to comply with their obligations under Regulations 13 (a), (b), (d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. Prime India Logistics. None of these parties was authorised for such work. Admittedly, the CHA did not know the exporter whose name was mentioned in the Shipping Bill. Hence, obviously, he did not obtain authorisation from the exporter for handling the consignment covered under the Shipping Bill. This conduct was in contravention of Regulation 13(a) of CHALR, 2004 as found by the Commissioner. As the CHA failed to transact their business either personally or through their duly appointed employees, they contravened Regulation 13(b) also. We have also noted that the charge under this provision has been admitted by the CHA before the Commissioner. Under Regulation 13(d), the CHA had an obligation to advise their clients to comply with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cy and with avoidable delay. Therefore, we are not in a position to sustain the charge that the appellants violated Regulation 13(n). Yet another finding recorded by learned Commissioner is that the CHA failed to comply with Regulation 19(8), by not exercising supervision ensuring proper conduct of the persons who transacted business . While Regulation 13 lays down the obligations of CHA in transacting business in a Customs Station in relation to import/export, Regulation 19 governs employment of qualified persons by the CHA for transacting such business. Regulation 19(8) has made it obligatory for the CHA to exercise supervision over his employees to ensure their proper conduct in the transaction of such business. Under this sub-regulati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the CHA. Sub-regulations (3) to (6) govern the proceedings relating to the inquiry. It is under sub-regulation (7) that the Commissioner, after considering the report of inquiry, if any, passes final order. We find that learned Commissioner complied with sub-regulation (1) by issuing letter dated 23-8-2005 (already extracted) to the CHA. It appears from the language of sub-regulation (2) that it is not mandatory for the Commissioner to appoint inquiry officer. He may himself conduct the inquiry. In the present case, apparently, the Commissioner chose not to appoint inquiry officer. He considered the reply given by the CHA to the letter dated 23-8-2005, heard Counsel them and passed the impugned order. Thus the procedure under Regulation 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted. Sub-regulation (1) empowers the Commissioner to revoke the licence of a CHA and order for forfeiture of security deposit on any of the grounds mentioned thereunder. Sub-regulation (2) authorises him to suspend CHA licence in appropriate cases where immediate action is necessary. The impugned order is essentially an order of suspension of CHA licence and hence should be considered to have been passed under sub-regulation (2) and not under sub-regulation (1) indicated in the operative part of the impugned order. It appears from sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 20 that any order of forfeiture of security can be made only along with revocation of CHA licence. Apparently, such an order cannot be made along with suspension of licence. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
