9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no permission has been obtained and that Shri Sumit V. Ghatkamble was not holding custom pass in the name of charged CHA while undertaking customs clearance of the subject export goods under the ten shipping bills of M/s. Leevon Overseas. Therefore, the charge under Article 12 has been proved against the appellant is beyond doubt - export clearance was held by Shri Sumit V. Ghatkamble and no clearance work was attended by any of the Director of the CHA firm or their employee having the custom pass - charges alleged against the appellants under CHALR, 2004 are stands proved - Decided against assessee. - C/719/2011-Mum - Final Order No. A/387/2012-WZB/C-I(CSTB) - Dated:- 14-6-2012 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) and P.R. Chandrasekharan, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Leevon Overseas and Shipping Bills were filed by them. It is admitted that they have not met or spoken to anybody on behalf of the exporter and inter alia admitted that he knew one Shrl Sumit Vikrant Ghatkamble who requested him that he has an export job of M/s. Leevon Overseas and whether he can negotiated and take up the said export job. On his agreeing, Shri Sumit V. Ghatkamble filed ten Shipping Bills in the name of the said exporter. Shri Sumit V. Ghatkamble had informed him that the export documents of M/s. Leevon Overseas were received by him from one Shri Mahesh Pande who was known to him. He further stated that he had negotiated with Shri Mahesh Pande for clearance charges of Rs. 2,200/- per Shipping Bill and gave him Rs. 5,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that this Tribunal in the case of Ganpati Warehousing Ltd. vide Order No. A/78/2012/CSTB/C-I, dated 18-1-2012 [2012 (280) E.L.T. 535 (Tri.)] observed that the punishment against the appellant is harsh and without considering the true and correct facts and thereafter the revocation of CHA licence was withdrawn. 4.1 He further relied on the decision of this Tribunal vide Order A/248/2012/CSTB/C-I, dated 4-4-2012 [2013 (294) E.L.T. 415 (Tri.-Mumbai)] wherein this Tribunal has found that the Commissioner of Customs has followed the policy of pick and choose and there is no consistency in decision while dealing with the same situation. Therefore, the revocation of CHA licence was set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned goods has been conducted by Shri Sumit V. Ghatkamble. It is also an admitted fact that Shri Sumit V. Ghatkamble was not having a customs pass. When a person is not having a customs pass and a trainee employee as contended by the appellant, in that situation, the clearance were conducted by Shri Sumit V. Ghatkamble is against the provision of CHALR, 2004, as the same was done without any authority of the appellant that the act of Shri Sumit V. Ghatkamble was within the knowledge of the appellant. These facts are also admitted by Shri Sumit V. Ghatkamble. It is also an admitted fact that the work has been brought by one Shri Mahesh Pande to Shri Sumit V. Ghatkamble to whom the appellant has allowed to use their CHA licence for so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
