9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r transferred. Violation of Regulation 13(a) - Revocation of license - Held that:- Obtaining an authorisation from the importer does not mean that the same should be obtained directly; so long as the concerned import documents were signed by the importer, it amounts to authorisation by the importer and, therefore, it cannot be said that there has been a violation of Regulation 13(a). As regards the last charge, i.e. the appellant did not transact the business through his employee but through Shri Sunil Chitnis thereby violating the provisions of Regulation 13(b) - Both Shri Sunil Chitnis and Shri Ashish Patekar, authorised signatory of the appellant CHA, has admitted that it was Shri Sunil Chitnis, who undertook the clearance work on behalf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 done in coordination with the clearing agent, Shri Sunil Chitnis of M/s. M.S. Shipping Agency. Shri Sunil Chitnis in his statement given before the DRI admitted that he had used the CHA licence of M/s. K.S. Sawant & Co., as a sub-agent for clearance of the medical equipment imported by M/s. Advanced Micronics Devices Ltd., and admitted to the under valuation. A statement of Shri Ashish Patekar, authorised signatory of M/s. K.S. Sawant & Co. was recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove 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 been transacted through their own employees and all the documents submitted to the Customs would prove this fact and, therefore, the charge of violation of Regulation 13(b) is also not sustained. He further submits that even though he has billed M/s. M.S. Shipping Agency for the transaction undertaken, the name of client, M/s. Advanced Micronics Devices Ltd., is mentioned in the bill. The billing was done to M/s. M.S. Shipping as he brought the customer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aganlal 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 or transferred his licence. In the case of Krishan Kumar Sharma v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 581 (Tri.), this Tribunal held that the mere fact of bills raised on the intermediary cannot be held against the CHA firm to prove that the CHA licence was sub-let or transferred. Therefore, in the light of the judgments cited above, the charge of violation of Regulation 12 is not established. As regards the violation of Regu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
