9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been violated in this case. As regards Regulation 13(a), it is clear from the provisions that the CHA has to take an authorization from the importer. An authorization given to a person (other than License holder) who actually used the CHA License does not become a true authorization in the sense and spirit of Regulation 13(a). An authorization addressed to the appellant was produced during the inquiry but this was much later and no authorization was produced at the time of seizure of the goods. We have seen the authorization. It does not even show any contact number or telephone number of M.S. International. Further there is a huge gap between the words yours truly and the signature on the authorization. The appellant has also failed to fulfill the condition of Regulation 13 (e) because he had allowed Shri Manish Sanghani to use his License and did not exercise due diligence to impart correct knowledge to the importer. As regards Regulation 13 (o) which requires the CHA to verify the antecedents of the importer, the appellant have tried to evade the charge by producing copies of PAN, IEC of the importer and a copy of the signature verification of the importer by the Bank. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .S. International in whose the name the goods were imported was lent to one Shri Manoj Kumar for monetary consideration. In his statement, Shri Manish Amlani, Director of Appellant CHA admitted having allowed use of the CHA License to Mr. Manish Sanghani whose own License under the name of M/s. National Shipping Agency had been suspended earlier. The Bills of Entry in the present case filed by Mr. Manish Sanghani using the CHA License of the appellant were presented for examination and assessment by the employees of the suspended licensee (M/s. National Shipping Agency) working under the control of Shri Manish Sanghani. The CHA License of the appellant was suspended vide Order No. 13/2012 dt. 29.5.2012 under Regulation 20 of CHALR 2004, for violation of Regulations 13 (a), 13(b), 13(d) 13(e) and 13(o). After an opportunity of hearing, the suspension of license was continued by Commissioner of Customs vide Order No. 25/2012-13 dated 31.07.2012, pending inquiry under Regulation 22 of the CHALR. On conclusion of enquiry, the Inquiry Officer in his report dt. 11.2.2013 proved six Articles of charge out of the seven Articles which were levelled against the appellant. The Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en blank letterheads of the importer. Ld. Counsel further stated that the appellant had cleared consignments of this importer through Nhava Sheva 3 years back and they had a bona fide belief that the importer was genuine. He further contended that no monetary consideration was received by them and, therefore the reliance placed by Commissioner on the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment in the case of Commissioner of Cus. C. Ex. Hyderabad-II Vs. H.B. Cargo Services 2011 (268) ELT 448 (A.P.) is not correct. 4.1. The Ld. Counsel further stated that even the licence of Shri Manish Sangani (National Shipping Agency) has since been reinstated. In the present case, the importer had paid the duty on the appellant s persuasion and the appellant had not been made a party in the show cause notice issued under the Customs Act. In his written submissions, the Ld. Counsel contended that the Inquiry Officer s report on violation of Regulation 13(o) states that the person accused of using the License of appellant had deposed that he had taken copies of signatures of authorized signatory from the bank account, PAN Card etc. of the importer. Therefore, according to the Inquiry Officer, it cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... signature on the authorization. Therefore, the Commissioners view that Shri Manish Sanghani was in possession of blank letterheads of the importer M/s. M.S. International is not an unreasonable conclusion. Especially when the Director of the appellant had made no efforts to contact the importer regarding clearance of the subject consignment which was seized. It would not be difficult to obtain someones IEC registration Number. Therefore the violation of Regulation 13(a) is established. Regulation 13(b) is clearly violated because the appellant allowed Shri Manish Sanghani to transact the business and also allowed the employees of Shri Manish Sanghani holding G-Cards in the name of National Shipping Agency, to transact business on documents of appellant-CHA. Even though, the plea taken is that the employees of National Shipping Agency had valid G-Passes, this does not give them authority to enter the Customs area and indulge in Customs clearance work on basis of documents which are filed by the appellant CHA. Regulation 13(d) stands violated for the simple reason that when the appellant has allowed his License to be used by another person, the requirement of advising his client to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 353 (Bom.), the Hon ble High Court held that the CHA cannot be penalized under CHALR when it has not been made party in the main case, and therefore held that revocation is disproportionate to the offence. Although, in the present case also CHA has not been made a party in the main case enough evidence has been provided to establish violation of CHALR Regulations. In fact, in the case of SS Clearing Forwarding Agency Ltd. the Hon ble Bombay High Court observed that merely because the CHA was not joined as a co-noticee cannot be a ground to hold that the inquiry proceedings initiated against the CHA were vitiated. In the case of SS Clearing (supra) the goods had already been cleared and were seized subsequent to clearance. In the present case, the goods were seized on proper intelligence before clearance. The mischief was conducted by Shri Manish Sanghani, who was using the CHA License of the appellant. By allowing such misuse the appellant was certainly negligent in performing his duties as required under the CHALR. Thus, the facts and circumstances of the present case and the case of SS Clearing Forwarding Agency are different. 11. The case of Jai Ambe Logistics vide Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
