2015 (12) TMI 321

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ike bill of lading, invoices etc. were given by the said Bhanushali to the Respondent. The original authority letter is dated 23rd September, 2011. In these circumstances, by terming the authorisation as so called and faulting the identity of the importer, the Commissioner could not have proceeded against the Customs House Agent. He could not have been held guilty of violation of Regulation 13(a) of the said Regulations. Tribunal holds that the absence of any finding by the Commissioner on such a vital aspect vitiates his order. Once there was a proper authorisation for clearance of the impugned consignment, then, Regulation 13(a) is not violated. This is a finding of fact based on factual material produced. It cannot be termed as perver .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt. He has to satisfy himself that the importer is a genuine and bonafide person. That some documents were handed over to the Respondent does not mean that the import is valid and legal. The importer himself was a person involved in flagrant violation of the law. The Customs House Agent should not have assisted him in this manner. In that regard, our attention is invited to the order-in-original and particularly paragraphs appearing at page 126 of the paper book, namely, paragraphs 20, 21, 22 and 23. 3) On the other hand, Mr. Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent Agent would submit that the Tribunal's order may be short, but it is correct. The factual and legal background has been noted. The Tribunal held that th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Bhanushali. He admits that the original authorisation letter from M/s. Bombay Traders authorising the Respondent to act as Customs House Agent along with import documents like bill of lading, invoices etc. were given by the said Bhanushali to the Respondent. The original authority letter is dated 23rd September, 2011. In these circumstances, by terming the authorisation as so called and faulting the identity of the importer, the Commissioner could not have proceeded against the Customs House Agent. He could not have been held guilty of violation of Regulation 13(a) of the said Regulations. 6) That is how the Tribunal has proceeded. It accepted the argument of the Respondent that it was having proper authorisation from the importer, which .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X