9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, he was not an employee at all. Also, CHA had been blindly signing the customs documents brought in by Mr Bhoir, accordingly, violation of Regulation 13 (d) and (n) are also proved. Similarly the allegation that CHA did not know the importer at all in violation of Regulation 13 (a) is also proved. Therefore, order of revocation of license is upheld - Decided against the assessee. - C/784/10-Mum - A/324/2012/CSTB/C-I - Dated:- 7-5-2012 - Ashok Jindal, P R Chandrasekharan, JJ. For Appellant: Shri. Rajendra Kumar, Adv. For Respondent: Shri A K Prabhakar, Supdt. (AR) Per : P.R.Chandrasekharan: The appeal is directed against order-in-original 64/2010/CAC/CC(G)/SLM dated 26.07.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Gen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not an employee and was working independently on commission basis, thereby violating Regulation 13(b) of CHALR, 2004. It was further alleged that the CHA did not follow the Regulation 13(d) in as much as they failed to advise their clients properly to comply with the provisions of Customs Act,1962 and the last Charge imputed against the CHA was that the CHA did not verify the genuineness of the importing firm and did not obtain authorization from them and knowingly allowed sub-agent Shri Dyaneshwar Ganpat Bhoir and his other associates Shri Thakur Prasad Shukla and Shri Sunil Umesh Kapoor to use his CHA licence for clearance of the imported goods for monetary considerations. These sub-agents were not his employees but were in turn paying hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so an appointment letter issued to Shri Dyaneshwar Ganpat Bhoir at the time of appointment. He also submits that the importer approached the Settlement Commission, Mumbai for settlement of the issue on payment of duty and interest and the Settlement Commissioner did not impose any penalty on Shri Dyaneshwar Ganpat Bhoir as part of the settlement proceedings. In as much as Shri Dyaneshwar Ganpat Bhoir is the main person who undertook the transaction and since he was imposed no penalty by the Settlement Commission, the employer of Shri Dyaneshwar Ganpat Bhoir should not be penalized. 4. The learned AR appearing for the Revenue submits that in this case, there are evidences available by way of statements recorded by the investigating agency ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Guj.) wherein it was held that sub-letting of licence, non-maintenance of statutory records, obtaining custom pass for non-employees, permitting employees of client to use it before Customs authorities for monetary gain are major violations of CHALR and, therefore, revocation of licence in such a situation cannot be considered harsh and therefore he p leads to uphold the impugned order revoking the licence. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. 5.1 From the records of the case it is seen that Shri Dyaneshwar Ganpat Bhoir in his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act on 19.09.2008 had, inter alia, admitted that he was working with Shri Chandrakant Popatlal Mota not as an employee but on a commission bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Counsel at the time of hearing. One of the Terms of Appointment order read as follows:- That in respect of clearance of consignments of parties introduced/brought by you, you shall be fully and entirely responsible for payment of duty/other statutory charges/fees and bills. That in respect of clerarances of consignments of parties introduced/brought by you, you shall be fully responsible for the settlement of disputes with statutory authorities like Customs, MBPT, Central Excise Octroi etc. without involving the CHA firm C.P. Mota Co. 7.1 The above terms and conditions of appointment are very strange. No employer, worth his name, will put such terms and conditions in respect of his employees holding the employee resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs.700/- per consignment. Therefore, sub-letting of the CHA licence by Shri Chandrakant Popatlal Mota is proved beyond any doubt and, therefore, violation of Regulation 12 of CHALR, 2004 is clearly established. It is on record that the CHA firm had shown Shri Dyaneshwar Bhoir as an employee and obtained a customs pass when, in fact, he was not an employee at all. As per Regulation 13(b) of CHALR, 2004, a CHA shall transact business either personally or through an employee. In as much as Shri Dyaneshwar Bhoir was not an employee and the transaction was handled by him, there is a clear violation of Regulation 13(b). In the instant case, their entire transaction handled by Shri Dyaneshwar Bhoir who was handling the transaction independently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
