9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is liable for all acts and omissions of his agent. In the present case, we note that Sh. Krishnan Kumar Garg was a G.card holder and employee of the appellant during the period when the shipping bills for the fraudulent exports were made. Sh. Garg was an authorized signatory of the appellant, hence the signatures appended by him on the export documents will necessarily have to be held as affixed by him in the course of normal business and on behalf of appellant. After having authorized Shri Garg to sign the documents on behalf of the appellant, the appellant cannot escape the vicarious responsibility for the acts and omissions of Sh. Garg. Reliance placed in the case of Rajendra Purohit Vs Union of India [2011 (11) TMI 333 - Gujarat High Court], where it was held that Regulation 19 (8) prescribes that CHA should exercise such control/supervision as may be necessary to ensure proper conduct of such employees in transaction of business as CHA and he be held responsible for all acts or omissions of his employees in regard to their employment. The contraventions of various regulations stand established against the appellant - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - C/50 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the fact that the exports were not genuine. Analysis of the shipping bills filed during the 2009 by these export firms showed that in almost all the shipping bills, the exported goods were described as Dyed and/or Printed Fabrics made from Polyester filment yarn, Texturised yarn with or without embroidery and/or with or w/o Metalised Yarn . None of the shipping bills or the relevant export invoices showed actual description of the goods. Scrutiny of the invoices revealed that all these purchase invoices were computer print-outs. Letters to the suppliers for verification at the addresses mentioned in these invoices were returned undelivered by postal authorities which shows that the suppliers mentioned in these invoices were not existing at the address mentioned in these invoices. Admittedly, goods were purchased from the local market on cash basis and apparently it was only after the initiation of investigation by DRI that these exporters presented fabricated purchase invoices, which appears to be an afterthought. Thus, it appears that the goods exported were not the goods described in the export invoices and the exporters had mis-declared actual description and unit price of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for failure to verify the antecedent, correctness of IEC code and functioning of a client at the declared address. (vi) Regulation 19(8) for not exercising proper supervision over the conduct of its employees. 4. The above observations led to the initiation of proceedings under CHALR, 2004 resulting in the revocation of the CHA license of the appellant. 5. With the above background, we heard Sh. Turan Garg, Advocate for the appellant and Sh. RK Manjhi, DR for the Revenue. 6. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had no role to play in the alleged fraudulent export by M/s Varun Impex in which duty drawback/DEPB was claimed. He submitted that the shipping bills, in question, were filed by Sh. Krishnan Kumar Garg, making use of the name of the appellant without the knowledge of the appellant. Consequently, the appellant cannot be held liable for the fraud. Hence he submitted that the revocation of CHA license as well as forfeiture of the security deposit may be set-aside. 7. The ld. Counsel for Revenue justified the impugned order. He submitted that the appellant, as a principal, is liable for acts and omissions of his agent. Accordingly, he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that Sh. Krishnan Kumar Garg was a G.card holder and employee of the appellant during the period when the shipping bills for the fraudulent exports were made. Sh. Garg was an authorized signatory of the appellant, hence the signatures appended by him on the export documents will necessarily have to be held as affixed by him in the course of normal business and on behalf of appellant. After having authorized Shri Garg to sign the documents on behalf of the appellant, the appellant cannot escape the vicarious responsibility for the acts and omissions of Sh. Garg. This view finds support in the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Rajendra Purohit Vs Union of India (2012(278) ELT 54) where it has been observed: when the entire scheme of regulation is examined, it clearly revealed that Regulation 13 read with Regulation 19(8) would make it obligatory on the part of the CHA to be responsible for the action of its employees. Regulation 12 provides that CHA license is not transferable and Regulation 19(8) prescribes that CHA should exercise such control/supervision as may be necessary to ensure proper conduct of such employees in transaction of business as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
