9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... examined at length this issue in his inquiry report and has also come to the same conclusion. Clearance work relating to the transactions was undertaken by Sri. Satish Tole, an employee of the CHA and not by Sri. Nirav Goradia. Therefore, the finding of the inquiry officer that this charge is not proved cannot be faulted at all and there was no other material available with the adjudicating authority to come to a different conclusion. In the article of charge issued to the appellant there is no specific allegation of contravention of Regulation 18. The only charge is that the muster roll of the employees has not been properly maintained and non-maintenance of cash register. However, in respect of Mr. Nirav Goradia, this allegation does not sustain because his name figures both in the muster rolls and the salary vouchers. There is no allegation whatsoever that the transactions undertaken in respect of Jayem Impex or other customers were not reflected in the records maintained by the appellant. If that be so, the infractions, if any, are only minor or technical in nature. The appellant has explained that there was a delay on the part of the importer in furnishing the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) the CHA did not know the importer M/s Jayem Impex. The CHA licence was suspended and inquiry proceedings were initiated under the CHALR, 2004. 2.1 On conclusion of preliminary investigation, a charge sheet was issued to the appellant CHA alleging contravention of - (a) Regulation 12 subletting of CHA licence to Mr. Nirav Goradia to clear the goods imported by Mr. Neelam Chabria of Jayem Impex; (b) Regulation 13 (b) for undertaking customs clearance work through a person who was not an employee; (c) Regulation 13 (k) for not maintaining proper records (muster roll of employees); Regulation 13 (n) for not discharging the duties as a CHA with utmost speed and efficiency; and Regulation 13(o) for not verifying the antecedents of importer. On completion of inquriy, the inquiry officer concluded that there is no bar under the CHALR in employing a person on part time basis and who is already working elsewhere and hence the charge of subletting is not proved. Since Sri. Nirav Goradia was in the employment of CHA and he had been issued with a valid G card, there is no contravention of Regulation 13(b). The other charges, that is, contravention of Regulation 13 (k), (n) and (o) were he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oduce the certificate in time and not on account of any fault of the CHA and therefore, contravention of Regulation 13(n) is not proved. (5) As regards non-verification of the antecedent of the importer, the importer M/s Jayem Impex was not a fictitious firm and the appellant had verified the KYC documents such as IEC code, authority letter to undertake the transaction, etc. and none of these documents were found to be fake or bogus. Hence, contravention of Regulation 13 (o) is also not established. (6) Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Tribunal in the case LMS Transport Co. [2014 (299)ELT 368}, K.S.Sawant Co. [2012 (284) ELT 363] and Manilal Patel Clearing and Forwarding Pvt. Ltd. [2013 (294) ELT 472] and of the hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ashiana Cargo Services [2014 (302) ELT 161 (del.)] in support of the above contentions. 4. The ld. Dy. Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue re-iterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. He submits that Mr. Nirav Goradia in his statement has admitted that he was employed as Manager of M/s Emkay Freight Services Pvt. Ltd. and also worked in his fathers firm. Therefore, his employment by the CHA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the customs clearance work other than an employee, in the present case the clearance work relating to the transactions was undertaken by Sri. Satish Tole, an employee of the CHA and not by Sri. Nirav Goradia. Therefore, the finding of the inquiry officer that this charge is not proved cannot be faulted at all and there was no other material available with the adjudicating authority to come to a different conclusion. Therefore, we agree with the finding of the Inquiry Officer that this charge is not proved. 5.4 The next charge is contravention of Regulation 13 (k) regarding non-maintenance of records properly. The said regulation provides for maintenance of records and accounts in the manner prescribed by the Asst./Deputy Commissioner of Customs. Maintenance of accounts and inspection of the same is governed by Regulation 18 and the said regulation provides that the CHA shall maintain such accounts in an orderly and itemised manner and keep them current; and reflect all financial transactions as CHA. In the article of charge issued to the appellant there is no specific allegation of contravention of Regulation 18. The only charge is that the muster roll of the employees has not b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
