9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on leave. That undoubtedly, as found by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, is not tolerable - the conclusion following from the report of the duly constituted inquiry authority that the licencee had failed in supervisory responsibilities is not on the same footing. The lack of any finding in the impugned order that the customs broker was aware, let alone, of conniving in the forgery. In the first round, the licencing authority was not convinced that the supervision was expected to extend to such matters as the licencee was not informed about - the revocation of licence and forfeiture of security deposit has been ordered in the absence of any further evidence recorded in this round that could lead to a different conclusion - it is ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve the omission rectified, Nilesh B Malpedi, with the full knowledge of another employee, undertook the forgery as the said Assistant Commissioner was on leave. 2. Following enquiry prescribed under the regulations which reported that the customs broker had failed to exercise proper supervision over their employees, the competent authority debarred the two employees from further work in the customs house but dropped proceedings against the customs broker with endorsement of warning on the licence. The appeal of the licencing authority against his own order, issued on the former occasion under the Custom House Agents Licencing Regulations, on the direction of Committee of the Chief Commissioners constituted under section 129D of Customs A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intention but, holding that such was not relevant, that criminal intent would suffice. It is also admitted in the impugned order that Revenue has not been impacted by this resort to expediency on the part of the employee of the appellant. In proceeding to hold the customs broker responsible for any acts of commission or omissions of employees, the licencing authority did acknowledge that the broker firm did not have knowledge of the forgery. 4. We have heard the submissions of the partner of the appellant-firm who claimed that they had never been involved in any act, in their many years of operation, that could be held against them and that the two employees had, fearing delay in shipment owing to absence of the Assistant Commissioner o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng authority was not convinced that the supervision was expected to extend to such matters as the licencee was not informed about. We find that the revocation of licence and forfeiture of security deposit has been ordered in the absence of any further evidence recorded in this round that could lead to a different conclusion. There is marked lack of any justification for the extreme detriment to the appellant. Furthermore, the circumstances as recorded would lend credence to the conclusion that it was merely an act of expediency, without any unwarranted gain, to meet shipping deadlines. No evidence is on record that the Assistant Commissioner of Customs would have disallowed the shipping had the duplicate copy been placed before him for rect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
