9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be admitted if there is a substantive question of law raised by the parties. 2. The question raised in the instant petition is whether a Customs House Agent (CHA) sublet his licence by signing blank papers and get absolved by arguing that he has not committed fraud which his agent might have. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal would show that categorical findings of fact have been recorded. From the affidavit filed by the appellant it has been found that Rs. 2.28 crores have been recovered from imports made by 12 out of the 14 importers involved in the unlawful transactions. The Tribunal further held that those persons to whom the appellant had given blank signed papers had cheated the Government and it was not surprising ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on that the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) has recorded categorical findings with regard to forging the signatures of the officers of the Customs Department, who were posted for registration of DEPB license and debiting the Customs duty involved against forged entries. They would also present fake TR Challans showing fake entries in the bank. Once these findings are there then no question of law much less a substantive question of law would arise. Moreover, if a power of attorney holder of a Customs House Agent commits fraudulent activities then the principal is responsible to the same extent. In that regard the reliance may be placed on the view expressed by the Madras High Court in the case of Sri Kamakshi Agency v. Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars. It is also admitted that Sri D. Sukumaran, Manager cum Power of Attorney of the Custom House Agent concerned, had actively involved in the fraudulent act in connivance with the importers and others and that as per the Power of Attorney Bond executed by Sri K. Natarajan, all acts, deeds and things done by Sri D. Sukumaran were to be construed as if they were done by himself. Therefore virtually all the fraudulent activities carried out by the Power of Attorney of Thiru Natarajan were to be treated as having been carried out by Thiru K. Natarajan himself. Even assuming that the role played by Thiru D. Sukumaran is to be construed as that of an employee of the applicant, the same would not in any way alter the situation since that had res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
