9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pping Services for his own gain. There is no evidence in the present case to show that the respondent / CHA had received any monetary gain. Apart from the allegation that he had kept signed shipping bills which was unauthorisedly taken away by the employee and misused by him. There is nothing brought out by the department implicating the CHA on the allegations raised in the SCN. Shri Muninathan himself has admitted that he has done such acts without the knowledge of the respondent and also in his absence. In such circumstance, respondent cannot be held to be liable for violation of Regulations under CHALR, 2004. The allegations concerning failure to comply with the obligation under Regulations of CHALR, 2004 cannot be visited with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipping bills. It was also revealed from the statement of Shri R. Muninathan, Clearing Clerk of respondent that he had handed over the blank shipping bills to M/s. Shri Bhabha Shipping Services for a monetary consideration of ₹ 200/-. The partner Shri H. Maniraj of M/s. Shri Bhabha Shipping Services stated that Shri R. Muninathan had helped him doing customs clearance for M/s. Pearl Pharma and gave him one signed blank shipping bill for a monetary consideration of ₹ 200/-. The statement of Shri Kulandaivelu also revealed that the blank shipping bill was handed over to him by Shr Muninathan for the said consignment. 2. Based upon the above details, show cause notice was issued to the respondent and others as to why the license ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. (ii) The proposal to hold the Noticee CHA responsible for the acts and omissions of their employee Shri Muninathan is not sustained. (iii) The Noticee CHA has failed to exercise the desired level of supervision on his employees and as such, the charge of having violated the Regulation 19(b) of the CHALR, 2004 is upheld. However, in view of the mitigating factors and unblemished past record of the Noticee CHA discussed herein above, I take a lenient view and refrain from imposing any penalty on the noticee. Nonetheless, I advise the notice CHA to be more careful in future in the supervision of their employees. (iv) The Noticee CHA is permitted to continue to conduct their business as a Custom House Agent in the normal cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the blank document. Since the respondent allowed unauthorized persons like Shri Kulandaiveu and H. Maniraj, partners of M/s. Shri Bhabha Shipping Services to handle customs documents by signing blank shipping bills for monetary consideration of ₹ 200/-,the obligation as per Regulation13(b) of CHALR, 2004 stands violated. Again, the respondent has not handled the customs clearance work directly and allowed other persons to transact business, which is also a violation on the part of respondent to comply with the obligations cast upon him in terms of the Regulations. The respondent did not have control over the customs clearance directly and therefore failed to exercise supervision ensuring proper conduct of the persons / employees who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd used signed blank documents for his own monetary consideration and that the respondent cannot be implicated for the unauthorized acts committed by Muninathan without the knowledge of the respondent. Though, the department alleges that the respondent is in practice of keeping signed blank documents, there is no evidence to substantiate the same. She also relied upon the findings in the impugned order. 8. We have heard the submissions made by both sides. 9. The Commissioner has given a detailed order considering the facts and evidence including the inquiry report. The records reveal that the signed documents which were kept by the respondent for use in emergency while he was out of station was taken unauthorisedly by Muninathan and h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the consequence of revocation of license and imposition of penalty. 10. With regard to whether there is violation of Regulation 19(a) of CHALR, 2004, the Commissioner has discussed as under:- As already discussed hereinabove, Shri Muninathan, the said employee of the Noticee CHA had handed over the said annexures to a third person for a consideration, without the knowledge of the proprietor. From the facts and circumstances and the evidence available on file, what emerges is that neither the said Shri Muninathan nor the said Shri H. Mani Raj (the person to whom the annexures had been handed over and who had actually handled the export clearance) was aware of the apparent malafide design of the exporter and of the fact of mis-decl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
