9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted. Accordingly the matter has come up today and we have taken up the appeal itself and early hearing application and stay applications filed by the appellants are considered as disposed of in view of the above observations. 2. The appellant is engaged in Customs clearance primarily at Chennai. The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai vide Order dated 05.08.2013 prohibited the appellant from working in any section of the Customs Commissionerate, Chennai Customs Zone with immediate effect. Thereafter Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore who was the licence issuing authority, suspended the licence of the appellant vide his Order dated 28.08.2013. The suspension was continued by an Order dated 12.09.2013. Thereafter an enquiry was conducted and af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ong supplier in turn raised invoice in the name of M/s. V.J. Enterprises; M/s. V.J. Enterprises filed the bill of entry; Shri. Vijaykumar signed the bill of entry and declares; V.J. Enterprises in turn received the price paid by them for the goods plus 4% commission of the net profit earned as a result of trading of the goods imported from one Shri. Ganeshan. Departments case is that, Shri. Ganeshan was the real importer and Shri. Vijaykumar was only a dummy, the Custom House agent failed in identifying this fact; the custom house agent dealt with one Shri. Santhakumar and they did not verify as to whether Vijaykumar himself was importer or not; even though 300 consignments were imported, the verification was not properly done. As a result ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t he had signed over 300 Bills of Entry at the instance of Shri. Ganeshan and that he had got 4% of net profit of each Bill of Entry from Shri. P. Ganeshan for using the IEC code in the name of M/s. V.J. Enterprises. Shri. P. Ganeshan, in his statements dated 17.12.2012 and 30.01.2013, has corroborated the admissions made by Shri. A. Vijayakumar. In the statement dated 17.12.2012, Shri. Ganeshan has admitted that the consignment presented for clearance vide Bill of Entry No. 8417362 dated 06.11.2012 actually belonged to him, that he did not have his own IEC code and used to obtain signatures of Shri. Vijaykumar for import formalities such as appointing CHA for Customs clearance etc. In his statement dated 30.01.2013, Shri. Ganeshan ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad met Shri. Ganeshan a couple of times, Shri. K. Natarajan, Proprietor of M/s. Accurate Clearing and Shipping Agency was also interrogated by officers of Chennai Customs. In his statement recorded on 18.01.2013, Shri. Natarajan has admitted that he did not know Shri. Vijayakumar and had not met him; that he did not know Shri. Ganeshan; that he was not aware that Shri. Ganeshan was using the IEC code of Shri. Vijayakumar and that he had authorized Shri. Saravanan to receive the documents for clearance. It is further admitted by Shri. Natarajan that since he was aged, he was not able to concentrate on day to day work and had authorized his clerks to handle and receive the documents. In his statement recorded on 4.2.2013, Shri. Natarajan has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these circumstances, it will be difficult to sustain the stand that the offence is so grave that licence of the broker cannot be continued to undertake this activity further. However we find that a little more control on the part of the custom house agent, a little more control over Shri. Saravanan would have probably brought the situation to his notice and this may not have happened. We are making these observations in view of the peculiar circumstance in this case wherein it has been brought out that Shri. Ganeshan paid Rs. 2000/- to Shri. Shanthakumar who paid Rs. 1500/- to the employee of the appellant who in turn give a receipt for only Rs. 250/- to Shri. Shanthakumar. From the method of transaction what emerges is probably the proprie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, there is nothing wrong or there cannot be anything wrong if the proprietor does not attend to day to day work but exercise only supervision. In the statement there is no indication and no clarification has been asked as to what kind of supervision he exercised over his staff and how he tried to ensure that they did not do any mischief. It has to be taken note that in this case the concerned clerk had been given an 'H' Card and therefore it cannot be said that he was totally an unauthorized person or unknown person or unqualified person for this purpose. That being the position reliance of the proprietor to some extent on the employee is acceptable. However total lack of supervision and the admission that he was aware of the process of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
