9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 874X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . BAXU 2598677 together with container No. BAXU 5004995 and BAXU 5108303 on behalf of importer M/s Laxmi Enterprises, Mulund (West), Mumbai, the items in the Bill of Entry declared were assorted bath soaps, shampoo/conditioner; the overseas supplier was Al Miridya General Trading LLC, Ajaman, UAE, but the country of origin of the goods was declared as China and the declared value (CIF) was $5250 (Rs.3,56,875/-) and duty amount of Rs. 5,16,592/- with respect to the said consignment was already paid by the importer. The intelligence received by Nhava Sheva Preventive Unit (NSPU), Rummaging and Intelligence Division, Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House, Mumbai Customs Zone-II that in the Speedy CFS, a smell of garlic emanating from container No. BAXU 2598677, located at the import yard of Speedy CFS, Jawaharlal Nehru Port, Nhava Sheva was felt. The smell of garlic from the container gave suspicion regarding the truth of items declared by importer. When enquiry was made with Shri Vijay Anant Baraskar, parter of M/s Baraskar Brothers, Shri Baraskar denied having any knowledge of importer M/s Laxmi Enterprises or import of cosmetics under the said Bill of Entry No. 672466 dated 16/01/2008. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... try. The Public Health Department of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai through their report dated 10/02/2008 informed that the samples of white garlic were unfit for human consumption. It was found that the value of seized 48.9 metric tons white garlic (4890 cartons) and 842 cartons of assorted bath soap, shampoo/conditioner was ascertained to be Rs. 78,24,000/- and Rs. 7,20,900/- respectively. 3. In view of the above undisputed offence, enquiry proceeding was initiated against the appellant. Accordingly summons to Shri Vijay Anant Baraskar were issued and his statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, wherein Shri Baraskar shown complete unawareness of the entire transaction. He stated that clearance job of goods of M/s Laxmi Enterprises was looked after by one of his employee Shri Anish Sachde. After the aforesaid case detected, he stated that he does not know any firm by the name of M/s Laxmi Enterprises and he never met and spoken to the proprietor/director of M/s Laxmi Enterprises. On question regarding signing of check list pertaining to the Bill of Entry No. 672466 dated 16/01/2008 of M/s Laxmi Enterprises, he stated that he did not know who si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the inquiry officer submitted his report vide letter dated 31/01/2014, wherein the seven charges under Regulations 12, 13(a), 13(d), 13(e), 13(k), 13(n) & 19(8) of CHALR, 2004 have been proved. The Appellant countered the charges and in their written submission submitted that there is no contribution on their part, as they have no knowledge about the offence done by their employees. It was not possible for the Appellant, due to frequent travelling, to supervise each and every clearance, they have believed their employees, hence they cannot be held responsible for the offence, if any, committed by their employees. 6. The Ld. Commissioner after personal hearing and considering the defense submission of the Appellant came to conclusion that CHA is guilty of violation of Regulations 12 and sub-regulations (a), (d), (e), (k) & (n) of Regulation 13 and sub-regulation (8) of Regulation 19 of CHALR, 2004 (now Regulation 10 and sub-regulations (a), (d), (e), (k) & (n) of Regulation 11 and sub-regulation (9) of Regulation 17 of CBLR, 2013). In a case involving subletting of CHA license and smuggling of prohibited goods which make it incumbent upon the CHA to receive most regress punishmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 13(k). No inefficiency was established in the inquiry proceeding on the part of the appellant, therefore Regulation 11(h) was not contravened. The appellant had exercised supervision on all its employees and had cooperated with department and assisted in the seizure of garlic. Hence, charge under Regulation 19(8) is not established. He submits that the licence stands suspended since 2008 and the appellant has already suffered sufficient punishment. On this ground, the Commissioner should not have revoked the licence in the light of following judgments:- (1) Ajay Clearing Enterprises - 2008 (228) ELT 297 (Tri.) (2) Smita International - 2004 (167) ELT 219 (Tri.) (3) Trans Shipping Service - 2004 (163) ELT 484 (Tri.) (4) Sainath Clearing Agency - 2011 (269) ELT 106 (Tri.) (5) K.S. Chhaya & Co. - 2011 (265) ELT 65 (Tri.) - upheld by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court - 2011 (272) ELT 180 (Guj.) (6) Mhatre & Sons - 2009 (241) ELT 401 (Tri. Mum) He also submits that the impugned order is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashiana Cargo Services reported in 2014 (302) ELT 161 (Del.). 8. Shri M.K. Sarangi, Ld. Joint Commissioner (AR) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceeding in reasonable time depending on the circumstances. Moreover, in the case of Mhatre & Sons - 2009 (241) ELT 401 (Tri. Mum) and this Tribunal judgment in the case of Unison Clearing Pvt Ltd Vs Commr of Customs (Gen), Mumbai - 2015-TIOL-1253-CESTAT-MUM , it was held that only due to delay in various time limitation in the proceeding, the action of revocation cannot be held illegal. The time limitation provided in Regulations is directory and not mandatory. In view of this position, we are the view that the proceeding of revocation of appellants CHA licence is not time bar. As regard merit of the case, we find that the importer has illegally imported garlic by concealing the same under the consignment of bath soap, shampoo/conditioner. Hence the smuggling of garlic has been established and there is no dispute on the said offence. The appellant has initially taken stand that he has no knowledge about the said transaction and the same was not recorded in his firm's job register. He stated that his employee Shri Anish Sachde must have done a job without informing him. In further inquiry the appellant accepted that the "Appendix A" declaration in respect of relevant Bill of Ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
