9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 664X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re was, therefore, be no reason for the appellant to believe that the client was in need to advice the client to desert from their proposed action. As to subletting, we find that the impugned order has merely proceeded on the concatenation of the request for withdrawal of ‘G’ certificate and the fact of employment elsewhere subsequently as evidence that such individual was not an employee when the bills were filed. The time-line, as seen from the application for ‘G’ certificate furnished by the Learned Counsel for appellant, would evidence otherwise. It appears that Shri Momayya has not been established to be a former employee of the appellant-agent. Consequently the charge of sub-letting/transfer, as well as failure to handle the consignment through an authorised employee or personally, fails. An authority letter was indeed obtained from the ostensible importer and its existence has been acknowledged as such by the Settlement Commission. The Regulations do not require that each and every authorisation should be acknowledged by a customs officer. As long as authority letter is in possession of the agent, compliance with the Regulation cannot be disputed. It must also be noted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulation 13 by failing to transact business personally or through approved employee and instead used Shri Amit S Momayya; d) violated regulation 13 by failing to advice his client to comply with Customs Act, 1962 and failed to report the non-compliance thereof. 4. After receiving the contentions of the custom house agent against the findings in the inquiry and consequent upon personal hearing on 18th December 2013, relying on the statements of the two partners of M/s Bajaj Enterprises and Shri Amit S Momayya, the Commissioner of Customs (General) found that the licence had been illegally transferred. The authority letter submitted by M/s Bajaj Enterprises was not acceptable to the Commissioner of Customs as it lacked acknowledgement by customs authorities. 5. Though the bills of entry were signed by Shri Yogesh Bajaj and notwithstanding the claim that Shri Amit S Momayya was an employee, the impugned order, relying on a cancellation request for G card received on 2nd December 2008 and issue of G card to Shri Momayya through M/s D V Shipping the misuse of licence was held to have been established. It was also held that the obligation of an agent did not end with mere sig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Customs has stressed that the infraction in this case is not a routine matter, but rather, illegal smuggling of narcotics by the G card users. However, given the factual finding that the CHA was not aware of the misuse of the G cards (and thus, also unaware of the contents being smuggled), no additional blame can be heaped upon the CHA on that count alone. Rather, the only proved infraction on record is of the issuance of G cards to non-employees, as opposed to the active facilitation of any infraction, or any other violation of the CHA Regulations, whether gross or otherwise. Neither have any such allegations been raised as to the past conduct of the appellant, from the time the license was granted in January, 1996. Equally, it is important to note that the appellant has - as of today - been unable to work the license for 8 years, and thus been penalized in this manner. This is not to say that CUS.A.A.24/2012 Page 12 the trust operating between the Customs Authorities and the CHA is to be taken lightly, or that violations of the CHA Regulations should not be dealt with sternly. A penalty must be imposed. At the same time, the penalty must ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the appellant. 11. Learned Authorised Representative reiterates that the statutory procedure had been complied with and that the penalty imposed is just and proper. 12. Customs House Agent (or Customs Brokers as they are now designated) are professionals licenced under the Customs Act, 1962 to render assistance to importers and exporter who would otherwise have to recruit specialized staff at the location of gateway ports which may be at a distance from their normal place of operation. They are, therefore, required to be proficient in the customs operation and procedure and to ensure that importer/exporter posses appropriate bona fides and act in conformity with the Customs Act, 1962. Naturally, they are not expected to conspire with those attempting to violate the law of the land. Such as do that abet would be subject to the penal provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 that are invoked against the offending importer/exporter. To ensure that the licenced agents do pursue their task diligently, the Regulation require them to obtain authorisation, advice their clients and personally handle the consignments. Thus, in the normal course of activities, they are not devoid of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
