9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eces weighing 1017.5 kgs. The goods were seized for further action under the Customs Act, 1962. Investigation conducted further revealed that the appellant had filed two more shipping bills 5505165 and 5505166 both dated 9-12-2004 on behalf of the said exporter. Statement of Sri Navnath J. Kenjale, employee of the appellant CHA was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act wherein he inter alia admitted that the four shipping bills dated 10-12-2004 were handled by Shri D. Belavendran alias Andrew Doraiswamy who was the export manager of M/s. Express Freight Pvt. Ltd. The said Belavendran was introduced by him to Mr. Kamlesh Gandhi, the partner of the CHA firm. Sri Kamlesh Gandhi instructed him (Mr. Kenjale) to sign the Check List and Annexure C and hand over the documents to Mr. Belavendran for processing and getting the goods examined and obtaining out of charge from the Customs and accordingly, after signing the check list and Annexure-C, he handed over the documents to Mr. Belavendran. He was holding only a temporary pass and he had signed the documents in this case under instructions of Mr. Kamlesh Gandhi. The export cargo was brought into the export shed by Shri. D. Belave ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ran and Mr. Kenjale; (d) The Annexure A to shipping bill No. 5505166, dated 9-12-2004 was signed by Mr. Belavendran and not by any authorized person of the CHA firm; (e) It was not possible to stuff 500 to 600 pieces of the goods (garments) described in the shipping bill in the cartons having dimension of 66 x 41 x 41 cms. which were used for packing the export goods; (f) The export invoices were signed by Mr. Belavendran; (g) His CHA firms had been issued 4 notices earlier for violation of CHALR; (h) His firm had been found guilty under the Customs Act, 1962 and consequently penalty has been imposed both on him and his firm. 2.3 On the basis of the enquiry, the Inquiry Officer held that all the charges against the CHA firm had been proved. The ld. Commissioner after hearing the appellant agreed with the findings of the inquiry officer and passed the impugned order revoking the licence of the appellant CHA and also forfeiting the security deposit. Hence the appellant is before us. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S.S. Clearing & Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd. - 2011 (263) E.L.T. 353 (Bom.); V.B. Bhatia & Co. v. Commissioner of Customs (General) - 2006 (200) E.L.T. 150 (Tri.-Mumbai); R.N. Lal & Brothers v. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) - 2006 (205) E.L.T. 686 (Tri.-Kolkata); Krishan Kumar Sharma v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 581 (Tribunal) and few other decisions. 4. The learned Dy. Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the adjudicating authority and submits that the allegation against the appellant-CHA stands clearly established. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 5.1 From the statement of Mr. Kenjale it is clear that the appellant had authorised Mr. D. Belavendran who was an outsider and not an employee of the CHA to process the export documents filed by the exporter and submit the same to the Customs authorities, to attend the examination of the goods and also get the Customs clearance done. This position has also been admitted by Shri Kamlesh Gandhi during the cross-examination proceedings. Therefore, it is clear that the appellant-CHA sought to get ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 13(d) punishment of revocation is justified. In the present case, the violation of Regulations 13(a), 13(b), 13(c), 13(d) and 13(n) stand clearly established. Therefore, following the precedent decision, we hold that revocation of the CHA licence is justified in the facts of the case. 5.5 As regards the reliance placed by the appellant in the case of K.S. Sawant & Co. the documents had been signed by the importer which amounted to authorisation, which is not the case obtaining before us. In the present case the documents have been signed by Mr. Belavendran who is not an authorised person of the exporter. Similarly, in the case of S.S. Clearing and Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd., the Customs had examined the goods and allowed the goods to be cleared and, therefore, it was held that the CHA could not have prohibited the clearance of the goods. That is not the fact obtaining in the present case. In the present case, the CHA knew that the goods under export had been misdeclared because the packing material used for the package of the goods were hardly sufficient for the packing of the export of the goods. In spite of knowing the same the CHA did not disclose the same to the Cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
