9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the rectification application . 2) By final order dated 24 December 2007 the Tribunal upheld the revocation of the Customs House Agents (CHA) licence of the appellant by order dated 8 October 2007 of the Commissioner of Customs (General).This revocation of CHA licence was under Regulation 22 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulation2004 (CHALR). 3) Although numerous questions have been formulated in the Memo of appeal, at the hearing the appellant presses only question 3 therein which reads as under: Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, if a person is detained in the Nashik Central Jail under COFEPOSA and due to which he could neither file proper reply nor appear for personal hearing granted to appellant, can it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Code (IEC code) required for import was also made available by him to importer Mr. Umesh Shetty after obtaining the same from Mr. Yogesh Merchant for consideration. Further, Mr. Niranjan Puthran also admitted that 11 more consignments had been imported by him in similar manner for Mr. Umesh Shetty and the appellant was paid Rs.1 lakh per consignment for its above services. The aforesaid fact of mis declaration was also corroborated by statement of Mr. Umesh Shetty (the importer), Mr. Himanshu Ajmera and Mr. Ketan Popat involved in clearance of misdeclared good. Although the above statement of Mr. Puthran was retracted by him on 22 February 2006, the retraction itself was withdrawn on 18 July 2006 and he stood by his earlier inculpatory sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppointed by notice dated 10 October 2006 submitted his enquiry report with regard to the appellant under Section 22(5) of the CHALR to the Commissioner of Customs. The above enquiry report dated 18 June 2007 after considering the evidence rendered a finding that all the three articles of charges as framed against the appellant stood proved. A copy of the enquiry report dated 18 June 2007 was furnished to the appellant. By its letter dated 27 August 2007 the appellant responded to the notice dated 6 July 2007 issued by the Commissioner of Customs and represented that Enquiry Officer's report is not just, proper and legal. Therefore, it was prayed that it be declared that the charges against the appellant are not proved. Thereafter, on 5 Octo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rter Mr. Umesh Shetty to import analog watch movements by declaring the same as plastic parts of toys. So far as Regulation 13(e) of CHALR was concerned, the order dated 24 December 2007 of the Tribunal inter alia held that in terms of the above regulation it was the responsibility of the CHA to exercise due diligence in imparting correct information to its client in relation to the import of cargo. In this particular case, it was held that appellant had not imparted correct information to its clients thus enabling the import of analog watch movements as plastic parts of toys. The Tribunal in its order dated 24 December 2007 also relied upon the decision of this Court dated 8 August 2007 in Criminal Writ Petition No.2096 of 2006 filed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conducted the enquiry, Shri. PuthranDirector of the appellant was under going COFEPOSA detention i. e. during the period 31 August 2006 to 8 August 2007. The enquiry proceeding commenced on 19 October 2006 and the Enquiry Officer's report was rendered on 18 June 2007. Therefore, during the entire period when the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry into the appellant's case its Director Mr. Niranjan Puthran was not able to instruct the appellant's Advocate and/or make his submission before the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, it is submitted that there was breach of principles of natural justice as the person conversant with the facts of the case was only Mr. Niranjan Puthran though he who was one of the six Directors of the appellant. It is su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... absence of its Director Mr. Niranjan Puthran (being in Jail) it was not possible for it to properly represent its case and the same resulted in prejudice to the appellant. It was only in the rectification application filed on 2 June 2008 that the above objection was raised by the appellant for the first time and the Tribunal in its order dated 19 September 2008 passed on rectification has clearly recorded that at no point during the hearing of the appeal by it was this issue raised. It is pertinent to note that Mr. Niranjan Puthran in his statement admits to the breaches/violations by the appellant. This statement of Mr. Niranjan Purthan was relied upon by the Customs Department in its notice dated 10 October 2006. The appellant sought cros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
