9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt for the alleged violation of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations Act, 2004 (CHALR for short) in terms of Regulations 13 (d) and 13 (n) of CHALR. This show-cause notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner, who revoked the Appellant's CHA Licence and also forfeited the security deposit. The Appellant was working as a CHA for importation and exportation of goods at Kolkata Port. Shri Samar Goswami, who was "G" Card Holder of the Appellant Company, had played the entire mis-chief by forging/impersonating the signature of Shri S.Das, the partner of the Appellant and dealt with the export consignment on his own accord for the clearance of export cargo at Haldia Port, there was no entry whatsoever of the job in the Job Register of the Appellant and also no payment was received by the Appellant from the exporter. 3. On coming to know through summons issued by the Department about the mis-chief committed by Shri Goswami, "G" Card Holder, a Police Complaint was also made on behalf of the Appellant on 15.10.2003 and the same was intimated to the Customs and Port Authorities on 17.03.2003. Thereafter, he was terminated from his service on 28.10.2003. Therefore, it is the submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the exporter was recorded on 25.06.03. Thereafter, the statement of the partner of the CHA was also recorded on 9.7.03. In his subsequent statement recorded on 4.8.03, the exporter denied that the present CHA was engaged in the export of the goods. However, subsequently, the show-cause notice was also issued on 3.2.05, which was replied by the appellants on 14.3.05. In his scenario, suspension of the licence by the Commissioner vide his impugned order issued on 24.5.05, was not justified inasmuch as the same has no nexus with the alleged offence. For the above proposition, reliance was placed upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Setwin Shipping Agency Vs. CC, Mumbai reported in 2004 (60) RLT 807 (CESTAT-Mum.) as also on another decision of the Tribunal in the case of G & K Shipping Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC (General), Mumbai reported in 2005 (68) RLT 569 (CESTAT-Mum.). 3. Apart from the arguments on the merits of the case, we find that the appeal can be disposed of on the above short point. Admittedly, the offence of alleged irregularisation took place in the year 2002 and the suspension order was issued almost after three years of filing the shipping bills. The Tribunal in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is that in this case the CHA Licenses was suspended to 24.05.2005 and thereafter the Show Cause Notice for revocation of the Licenses was issued on 22.06.2005. Thereafter, enquiry report was submitted to the Commissioner on 18.07.2005. 11. In the meanwhile, the appellant approached the Tribunal against the suspension order which was set aside by the order dated 19.01.2006 as extracted above. However, the Commissioner again suspended the licenses of CHA on 6.02.2019 in spite of having favorable order from the Tribunal. 12. The second Show Cause Notice was issued on 3.08.2010, which was followed by the inquiry report dated 30.11.2010. The CHA License was revoked thereafter on 23.03.2012. It is not apparent from the case filed as to why the Commissioner has suspended the licenses of CHA again when the earlier order was set aside by this Tribunal. In absence of any stay from the higher court, the commissioner should not have ventured to issue another notice for suspending the license in such a situation. 13. This itself is judicially incorrect and unacceptable. It would have been sufficient to set aside the order passed by the Commissioner, however we do not indeed to do so and proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvolved in the generation of invoices in the computer for helping the appellants. The various case laws cited by the learned consultant are very relevant. The employees appear to have committed the improper acts without the approval and blessings of the CHA. Considering the submission that the CHA had a good track record in different ports for about 25 years we feel that the penalty on the CHA imported in para 'm' of the order is not justified. The same is set aside." 15. Further, we also find that similar findings have been recorded by the Tribunal in the case of M/s Arif I Patel vs. Commissioner of Customs preventive (Mumbai) 2014(304) ELT 698 (Tri.-Mumbai), wherein it is held that the appellant CHA had no knowledge of importers and therefore they should not be held liable for any misdeed by the importer. The relevant paragraph of the order is reproduced as under: "7. We have gone through the impugned order and the argument advanced by all the parties. The role of Shri Kashyap J. Badekha is limited by introducing importer to Shri Arif Patel for clearance of the goods and to help the importer to get IEC. He has nothing to do with the import of contraband goods. We further find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
