9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1093X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a holder of Custom Broker license which is valid up to 14.07.2024. Shri P. Ganapathy is a F card holder and authorized signatory of the appellant-firm. Shri O. Kassim has been an employee of the appellant and a G card holder. 1.2. Special intelligence and investigation branch of the Custom House Cochin booked a case involving evasion of customs duty by mis-declaration and undervaluation of imported goods and submission of fabricated documents by M/s. Riya Electronics, Malappuram and certain other importers. Preliminary investigation revealed that the Bills of Entry under investigation were filed by the appellant firm while the clearance of goods imported/under import were handled by one Shri N.S. Mahesh, who did not have any proper aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gations contained in show-cause notice. Thereafter a detailed enquiry was conducted by Deputy Commissioner and he submitted his enquiry report on 09.01.2015. Thereafter a rejoinder to the enquiry report was submitted by the appellant vide submission dated 05.03.2015 before CC, Cochin denying charges against the appellant. The learned Commissioner, Customs after considering the enquiry report, written submissions of the appellant filed on 05.03.2015 and after affording appropriate opportunity of hearing to the appellant and analyzing the facts and material brought on record, came to the hold that CB had intentionally violated the provisions of Regulations 11(a), (b), (K) and (n) of CBLR 2013 and consequently imposed the maximum penalty by re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... try in the port area and operated there solely because of the entry pass applied by M/s Krishna Brothers was denied as baseless and unsustainable by the appellant. To controvert this allegation the learned Commissioner on the basis of enquiry report has observed that from the record, it is proved that CB themselves had applied to M/s. Cochin Port Trust on 01.01.2013 for renewal of Bio Metric Wharf Entry Pass of Shri N.S. Mahesh and in the said application Shri Ganapathy Iyer, Managing Partner of CB had certified that N.S. Mahesh was their regular employee and they are fully responsible for ensuring good conduct of their employees and this was done in respect of the fact that Mahesh was already in possession of a valid G card in the name of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons stipulated in CBLR 2013. From the above, it appears that the nature of offence committed by CB deserves penalty and revocation of the license under Regulation 18 (b) and (c) of CBLR 2013. Further the learned Commissioner in the impugned order has discussed the material contradictions in the statements of CB Ganapathy, Kassim and Mahesh and finally has come to the conclusion in para 16 which is reproduced herein below: "16. From the above it emerges that CB had contravened provisions of Regulation 11(a), (b), (k) and (n) of CBLR 2013. Quantum of penalty in cases such as these are decided based on nature and gravity of the offence and the involvement of top management in the commission of the offence. In the instant case, it is seen tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their actions involving surrendering all duties, responsibilities and obligations cast on them by the statute, to a private individual and helping him in the conduct of his business by providing false employment certificate, rendered themselves liable for action under provisions of Regulation 18 of CBLR 2013. The nature and gravity of the offence committed by CB and the involvement and complacence of the top management in the alleged acts leaves me with no option but to impose on them the maximum penalty stipulated therein." 4.1. Further we find that the case law relied upon by the appellant does not apply to the facts of this case. The case law mentioned below and relied upon by the AR would apply in the instant case. (i) CC Vs. K.M. G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lties likely to be faced by the CHA or his employees. The decision is best to be left to the disciplinary authority save in exceptional cases where it is shockingly disproportionate or mala fide. That is not the case here. 29. In the circumstances, we allow Customs Appeal No. 37 of 2006 filed by the appellant-Commissioner of Customs since the CESTAT was not justified in setting aside the revocation of the CHA licence in the facts and circumstances of the case and on the material on record. The order of the CESTAT setting aside the order of the appellant-Commissioner of Customs was clearly perverse in law. Appeal No. 37 of 2006 is, therefore, allowed. The order dated 4-4-2006 passed by the CESTAT is set aside and the order dated 17-1-2006 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
