9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after the transactions had taken place and, therefore, this cannot be considered as an authorisation as envisaged under the CHALR, 2004. Thus the charge of transacting without proper authorisation from the exporter also stands clearly established which is a confrontation of Regulation 13(a). - all the charges against the appellant, except that of subletting, stand fully established in the present case - No infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General), revoking the licence of the appellant-CHA. - Decided against the appellant. - C/183/2012 - Final Order No. A/1168/2013-WZB/C-I(CSTB) - Dated:- 2-5-2013 - S/Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (T) and Anil Choudhary, Member (J) Shri J. Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri M.S. Reddy, Dy. Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 81/CAC/CC(G)/SLM/CHA(Admn), dated 29-11-2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General), New Customs House, Mumbai. Vide the impugned order, the CHA licence No. 11/92 of M/s. International Express Company, the appellant, has been revoked. 2. The appellant filed 4 shipping bills Nos. 5506260, 5506261 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of S/B No. 5505166, Annexure A was signed by Mr. D. Belavendran, instead of the partner of the CHA firm. 2.1 On the basis of the investigation, a charge memorandum was issued to the appellant imputing contravention of, - (1) Regulation 12 of CHALR, 2004 for subletting of the licence, (2) Regulation 13(a) for not obtaining proper authorization from the exporter, (3) Regulation 13(b) for conducting business through a person who was not his employee and who was not approved by the Customs, Regulation 13(c) for allowing an unauthorized person, Mr. Belavendran, to represent before the customs right from the submission of check list up to the stage of examination of the goods, Regulation 13(d) for not advising the clients with regard to compliance of the provisions of the Customs Act, and Regulation 13(n) for not discharging the duties of a CHA with utmost speed and efficiency. 2.2 During the inquiry proceedings, Mr. Kamlesh Gandhi, partner of CHA firm, was examined which revealed inter alia the following :- (a) Mr. Belavendran was introduced to Mr. Gandhi by one Mr. Vinayak whose whereabouts were not known to Mr. Gandhi and the said Vinayak was introduced to him by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact has not been appreciated by the adjudicating authority. Similarly, the appellant had submitted authorization from the exporter to undertake the transaction and this fact has also not been appreciated by the adjudicating authority. 3.3 As regards the allegation that the business was transacted through Mr. Belavendran, who is not an employee of the appellant-CHA, this allegation is incorrect inasmuch as the Customs copy of the shipping bill and the exporter s copy bear the signatures of Shri Jagdish Patil and Shri Navnath Kenjale, who are employees of the appellant and, therefore, it cannot be alleged that the appellant transacted the business by employing somebody else. 3.4 As regards the misdeclaration made by the exporter with respect to the quantity, quality and value of the goods under export, the appellant-CHA cannot be held responsible as he had no scope to know about the quantity, quality and value of the goods and he made the declaration as per the documents given by the exporter. It is also submitted that there is no provision in the CHALR that only persons having documentary pass issued by the Customs are authorized to transact work in the Customs area. 3.5 T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so noticed that the CHA violated the provisions of Regulation 13(d) inasmuch as he had not advised his client to comply with all the provisions of the Customs Act and to bring to the notice of the Customs officer in case of any non-compliance. During the enquiry proceedings Mr. Kamlesh Gandhi, partner of the CHA-firm admitted that goods could not have been packed in the cartons used for the said purpose which clearly shows that the CHA was well aware that there is misdeclaration with respect to the quantity of the goods declared in the shipping bill. Shri Kamlesh Gandhi has also confirmed that Mr. Belavendran had signed Annexure A to the shipping bill No. 5505166, dated 9-12-2004 who was not an authorised person nor an employee of the appellant-CHA. It is also evident that the invoices for the export have been signed by Mr. Belavendran who was not an employee of the exporter or authorised person of the exporter-firm. In spite of these facts the CHA did not bring these same to the notice of the Customs. Therefore, we are of the considered view that all the charges against the appellant, except that of subletting, stand fully established in the present case. 5.4 This Tribunal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
