9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elligence about import of Multi-channel monitoring system in the guise of advanced pulse oximeter systems by misdeclaration of the product. The importer was M/s. Advanced Micronics Devices Ltd. and the CHA involved was M/s. K.S. Sawant & Co. On the basis of the report of the DRI, the CHA licence was suspended vide Order No. 53/2008, dated 19-9-2008 and the suspension was revoked vide Order No. 151/09, dated 25-3-2009 based on the representation made by the CHA. An inquiry was initiated against the CHA with respect to their role in the alleged transaction. Statements of Shri Badrinath Sirsi, Vice-President (Marketing of M/s. Advanced Micronics Devices Ltd., was recorded, wherein he admitted that the misdeclaration of the imported goods was d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Sunil Chitnis of M/s. M.S. Shipping Agency for a monetary consideration and therefore, there is no violation of Regulation 12. Shri Sunil Chitnis of M/s. M.S. Shipping Agency was acting as intermediary/agent to generate business for the CHA and under CHALR 2004 there is no bar in accepting business from intermediary. He relied on the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of P.P. Dutta reported in 2001 (136) E.L.T. 1042 (Tri.-Del.) in support of the above arguments. 3.1 The Ld. Advocate further submits that there is no violation of Regulation 13(a) inasmuch as they had obtained an authorisation from the importer for undertaking the transaction. As regards the violation of Regulation 13(b), the Advocate submits that the business has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Micronics Devices Ltd., was brought in by Shri Sunil Chitnis, who claims himself to be a sub-agent of the appellant CHA. The statements of Shri Badrinath and Shri Sunil Chitnis amply proves this fact. The question is, merely because the appellant procured the business through an intermediary who is not his employee, can it be said that he has sub-let or transferred the business to intermediary. The Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Chhaganlal Mohanlal & Co. Ltd. [2006 (203) E.L.T. 435 (Tri. - Mum.)], held that if the Customs clearance has been done through intermediary and business was got through intermediary, the same is not barred by the provisions of CHALR, 2004 and it cannot be stated that the appellant has sub-let o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rove that the clearances were undertaken by the appellant CHA and, therefore, there is some merit in the argument that Regulation 13(b) has been violated by employing Shri Sunil Chitnis for doing the clearance work of M/s. Advanced Micronics Devices Ltd. The question now is whether revocation of licence is warranted for such a violation. In our view, the punishment should be commensurate with the gravity of the offence. Revocation is an extreme step and a harsh punishment, which is not warranted for violation of Regulation 13(b). Accordingly, we are of the view that forfeiture of security tendered by the appellant CHA is sufficient punishment and revocation is not warranted. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the revocation and direct t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
