9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the CHA licence No.11/775 issued to M/s Jai Ambe Logistics, Mumbai and also forfeited the entire security deposit of Rs. 75000/-. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us. 2. The licensing authority received a report from the Directorate General of Vigilance in respect of a complaint received by them from Sri. Neelam Chabria of M/s Jayem Impex alleging illegal business practices followed by M/s Jai Ambe Logistics and others. It was reported that one Mr. Nirav Goradia was appointed by the CHA firm as their employee with effect from 1-10-2010 while was functioning as a Manager with M/s EmkayFreight Services Pvt. Ltd., a freight forwarding firm and also working in his fathers firm M/s Expimpo, who are exporters of fast moving con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 held to be proved as the muster rolls were not mainted properly, there was a delay in obtaining BIS certificate in respect of iclearance of goods imported by Jayem Impex and the CHA had not met the importer before clearance of export/import consignment and did not verify the antecedent, correctness of the importer and the exporter. 2.2 The adjudicating authority did not agree with the findings of the Inquiry officer with respect to contravention of Regulation 12 and 13(b) on the ground that Mr. Nirav Goradia apparently used the CHA licence for clearance of goods of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gulation 18 which was not the allegation in the notice issued to the appellant. Even if there is any negligence in maintenance of records, it is only a technical breach of the law for which revocation of CHA licence is not justified. (4) The delay in production of BIS certificate was because the importer did not produce 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 b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he AR representing Revenue as to whether any contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 has been committed by the CHA in the impugned transactions and whether any loss to the exchequer has been caused; both the sides confirmed that there has been no such contravention or any loss caused to the Revenue. We were also informed that the appellant has been functioning as a CHA for more than two decades and has not come to the adverse notice of the department previously. 5.2 The first charge against the CHA is one of sub-letting of CHA licence and the basis for this charge is that they had employed Shri. Nirav Goradia as a part time employee when he was already in the employment of two other firms and he had been issued with a G ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 been properly maintained and non-maintenance of cash register. However, in respect of Mr. Nirav Goradia, this allegation does not sustain because his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny such finding, the issue is merely academic and technical in nature and we hold accordingly. 5.7 Similar issues have been considered by this Tribunal in several cases in the past. In K.S. Sawant & Co. (supra), this Tribunal held that procurement of business through an intermediary who is not an employee does not amount to sub-letting of CHA licence and there was no requirement of obtaining authorisation to undertake the transaction directly from the importer/exporter and even if they are obtained indirectly, no violation of CHALR could said to have taken place. A similar view was taken in L.M.S. Transport Co. and other decisions relied upon by the appellant (supra). In Ashiana Cargo Services (supra), the hon'ble High Court of Delhi held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
