9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai. In the impugned order, the lower appellate authority has affirmed the penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- imposed by the original authority under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The appeal has been filed with a delay of 22 days. In the application for condonation of delay, it is submitted that the impugned order had been misplaced in the Counsel s office though it had been received on 2-5-2005. The appeal could be filed only on 24-8-2005 as the impugned order had got mixed up with other papers and was traced only after the normal period for filing the appeal had elapsed. Against another order suspending the CHA licence of Shri R. Adhikesavan dated 9-7-2004, the appellant ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs, Chennai suspended the CHA licence (R. No. 529/CHA) issued to M/s. Fema Shipping Agency for three years upto 26-4-2007 and forfeited their security deposit of Rs. 25,000/-. 5. The common facts of the cases are that Shri R. Adhikesvan was a partner in the CHA firm M/s. Fema Shipping Agency. He was also the proprietor of M/s. Vatchala Enterprises, an exporting firm. He undertook to file papers as an exporter of a consignment of 10 M.T of Pop corn maize under Shipping Bill No. 1585090 dated 25-4-03 using his Import Export Code on behalf of someone he had not known. He also functioned as CHA in the export of this consignment. He acted in response to the request of a middleman and a stranger, namely, one Shri Kaleel, for a fee of Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant was not party to any conspiracy to smuggle out prohibited goods and there was no finding by the lower authorities to the effect that Shri R. Adhikesavan was aware of the attempt to export the contraband involved. The appellant was out of work as CHA for the previous two and a half years and therefore, the ld. Counsel prays to waive the pre-deposit and decide the appeal. At this stage the ld. SDR submits that the appeal itself may be disposed. Accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit, with the consent of both sides, both the appeals are taken up for disposal by this common order. 7. The impugned orders have been passed in respect of the same transactions. The Commissioner has observed in Order in Original No. 2464/2004 date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority and prays that the submissions made in pursuance of the appeal No. C/410/05 may be taken into account to decide the Appeal No. C/303/2004. He seeks leniency for the reason that the CHA was out of job for more than 2 years and prays for revoking the suspension of the licence for the remaining period as per the adjudication order. 9. The learned SDR opposes the prayer of the learned Counsel on the ground that serious fraud had been committed by the CHA as set out in the impugned orders. 10. On consideration of the submissions of both sides, I find that the impugned orders do not call for interference by this Tribunal. The authorities have imposed penalties appropriate to the violations and contraventions involved. The Customs auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
