9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cided against CHA. - C/429/2010 - Final Order No. 40240/2013 - Dated:- 10-4-2013 - P K Das And Mathew John, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri S Murugappan, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri KSVV Prasad, Jt. Commr. (AR) PER : P K Das The appellant, a Customs House Clearing Agent, filed this appeal against revocation of CHA Licence and forfeiture of the security deposit of Rs.75,000/- under Regulation 20 of CHALR, 2004. 2. The relevant facts of the case in brief, as revealed from the records are that the appellants are holder of CHA Licence No. TRY 37/2002 issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Trichy, for providing CHA service since 2003 at Chennai. In August 2008, they had been permitted to transact business at Tuticorin also. They engaged Shri C.T. Jagan, Manager to look after the Tuticorin Branch Office. They used to send blank signed Annexure - A / Appendix - I forms to their Tuticorin office to use as per requirement. At the end of January 2009, it came to their knowledge that more number of Shipping Bills were filed at Tuticorin Customs House by the Manager compared to the number of blank signed forms given by them to the Tuticorin office. Shri Jagan, by letter dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt holding that the appellant-CHA is not involved in the said illicit export. He submits that in the similar situation the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Falcon Air Cargo and Travels (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India - 2002 (140) ELT 8 (Del.), observed that in such cases the right to carry upon trade or profession in the background of Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India has to be noted. He submits that the appellant has no role in such alleged illegal export and by way of revocation of CHA licence, the livelihood of the appellant along with their employees have come to a standstill. 5. The learned AR submits that it is admitted by the appellant that they have sent signed blank Annexure - A / Appendix forms to the Tuticorin Branch Office in an irregular manner. Shri A. Tajmul Sulaiman, Power of Attorney of the appellant-firm in his statement dated 4.5.2009 blamed the Manager for misuse of the forms by forging his signature. He submits, according to the appellant, it came to the knowledge at the end of January 2009 that their Manager Shri Jagan had been forging customs documents and they obtained an admission letter from the Manager to that effect on 26.2.2009, just o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Branch without knowing the importer or exporter which would show that the Manager of the CHA of Tuticorin acted under the instruction of the Chennai office. Thus, the CHA firm is responsible for the forgery of documents by their employee. There is gross violation of Regulation 13(a), 13(d), 19(8) and 19(10) of CHALR, 2004. We find that the case law relied upon by the learned AR would apply in the instant case as under:- (i) In the case of Worldwide Cargo Movers (supra), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held as follows:- "28. In our view, the Tribunal has committed a grave error in interfering with the decision of a domestic authority. In a departmental proceeding one has to see whether the principles of natural justice are followed and the findings are justified from material on record. Once both these aspects are satisfied if an outsider Tribunal interferes, its findings and order will be improper and perverse which is what has happened in the present case. Similarly when one comes to the disciplinary measures, one must not lose sight of the fact that the appellant-Commissioner of Customs is responsible for happenings in the Customs area and for the discipline to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Commissioner of Customs who is best placed to understand the importance of the CHA in a customs area, and the trust and confidence reposed on him by the customs department. In an appeal, preferred against an order imposing punishment under the CHALR, the CESTAT should not be swayed by considerations of misplaced sympathy. Interference with the punishment imposed would be justified only when it shocks the conscience of the CESTAT. No indulgence can be shown to persons indulging in acts of corruption. The punishment imposed on the respondent, by the Commissioner of Customs, of revocation of their license, when viewed in the light of the grave and serious acts of misconduct held established, is justified. The punishment imposed is not one which can be said to shock the conscience of courts/Tribunals. The order passed by the CESTAT on mere surmises and conjectures and their interference, with the punishment imposed by the Commissioner, on grounds of misplaced sympathy is in excess of their jurisdiction, and gives rise to a substantial question of law necessitating interference by this Court under Section 130 of the Customs Act. The order of CESTAT is, therefore, set aside, and the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent. The fact remains that the respondent sustained a loss of duty by the reckless and irresponsible behavior of the Applicant in the course of discharge of his functions as Custom House Agent licensee. The respondent therefore rightly revoked the Custom House Agent licence of the Applicant. In the circumstances, while answering the questions now referred by the Tribunal in C/Ref/13/97 in favour of the respondent holding that the order of the Tribunal to the effect that on further deposit of Rs. 25,000/-, the licence of the Applicant should stand renewed with effect from 1-1-1997 is wholly illegal and improper, the various questions referred in C/Ref/13/97 are answered against the Applicant. The Reference Case is disposed of accordingly. 9. The case of Falcon Air Cargo and Travels (supra), as relied by the learned counsel, would not be applicable in this case. In that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal to decide the issues in accordance with law. The question of proportionality has been considered in the present case. It is seen from record that, Show Cause Notice dated 1.1.2010 was issued and Assistant Commissioner, Customs Headquarters was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
