9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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 dated 26.2.2009, admitted that he had forged the signature on the forms and filed the Shipping Bills without the knowledge of the Chennai Office. The DRI officers intercepted the consignment on 27.2.2009 accompanied with two Shipping Bills both dated 27.2.2009 filed by the appellant for the export of stainless steel utensils on behalf of their client M/s. JVM International, Tiruppur. After detection of the goods by the DRI officers, and on examination of the container it was found that Ketamine Hydrocholoride was concealed in the utensils, which is restricted chemical and no objection certificate from Narcotic Commissioner is required for export. The exporter is not traceable. The appellant lodged FIR No.C0856317 dated 2.3.2009 at Tuticorin South Police Station that Shri C.T. Jagan forged their signature on the Form - H Card issued to him by the Customs House. 3. A show-cause notice dated 1.1.2010 was issued to the appellant proposing to forfeit security deposit of Rs.75,000/- and to revoke CHA Licence under Regulation 20 of CHALR, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 one day before the interception of the goods by the DRI officers. This fact itself indicates that the appellant was involved with the Manager. He relied upon the following decisions:- (i) Commissioner of Customs Vs. Worldwide Cargo Movers - 2010 (253) ELT 190 (Bom.) (ii) Commissioner of Customs Vs. H.B. Cargo Services - 2011 (268) ELT 448 (AP) (iii) Sri Kamakshi Agency Vs. Commissioner of Customs - 2001 (129) ELT 29 (Mad.) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP as reported in 2002 (142) ELT A87 (SC). 6. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that there is no dispute that the appellant used to send signed blank Annexure - A/ Appendix forms to their Tuticorin Branch Office. It is seen that the appellant filed two Shipping Bills both dated 27.2.2009 for the export of stainless steel utensils on behalf of their client M/s. JVM International, Tiruppur. It was found on investigation that the consignment contained "Ketamine Hydrochloride" which is a restricted chemi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 maintained over there. If he takes a decision necessary for that purpose, the Tribunal is not expected to interfere on the basis of its own notions of the difficulties likely to be faced by the CHA or his employees. The decision is best to be left to the disciplinary authority save in exceptional cases where it is shockingly disproportionate or mala fide. That is not the case here. 29. In the circumstances, we allow Customs Appeal No. 37 of 2006 filed by the appellant-Commissioner of Customs since the CESTAT was not justified in setting aside the revocation of the CHA licence in the facts and circumstances of the case and on the material on record. The order of the CESTAT setting aside the order of the appellant-Commissioner of Customs was clearly perverse in law. Appeal No. 37 of 2006 is, therefore, allowed. The order dated 4-4-2006 passed by the CESTAT is set aside and the order dated 17-1-2006 passed by the appellant-Commissioner o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 order of the Commissioner, revoking the license of the respondent CHA, is affirmed. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs." (iii) In the case of Sri Kamakshi Agency (supra), the Hon'ble Madras High Court has held as follows:- "The grant of licence to a person to act as Custom House Agent is to some extent to assist the Department with the various procedures such as scrutinising the various documents to be presented in the course of transaction of business for entry and exit of conveyance or the import or export of the goods. In such circumstances, great confidence is reposed in a Custom House Agent. Any misuse of such position by the Custom House Agent will have far reaching consequences in the transaction of business by the Custom House officials. Therefore when the Applicant who had thirty years of experience as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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 nominated for carrying out inquiry under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004. Enquiry Officer Report dated 18.6.2010 was forwarded to the applicant. By letter dated 21.6.2010, the Commissioner directed the applicant to submit representation as provided under Regulation 22(6) of CHALR, 2004. The adjudicating authority revoked the licence following the due process of law and in full compliance of procedure of Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004. No dispute was raised. Hence the submission of the learned counsel that Commissioner (Appeals) waived penalty has no force. In any event, the penal proceeding initiated under Customs Act, 1962, has no binding effect on action taken under CHALR, 2004, which is a self-contained and independent Regulation. 10. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner. Accordingly, the appeal filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
