9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i S. Das, and sent for the forensic examination, so as to acertain as to whether the signature appearing on the export documents was by him or the same has been forged by the G Card holder, Shri Samar Goswami. The forensic report is only an opinion for the similarities, like straight nature of commencement of the initial oblique/of S , acute angularity in the middle, compressed nature of the bottom curve and ticked manner of execution of the terminal part of S etc. (Page-143 of the Paper Book refers) This is an opinion only that was formed on the manner of making a sample signature, which may be very closely/similarly imitated by some other person (more so, if he has some idea about Forensic Science relating to identification of handwriting). This opinion cannot change/belie the other circumstantial/corroborative facts/evidences on record. It cannot be concluded that the signature that appeared on the export document was of Shri S.Das, the partner of the appellant company. Further, there are a lot of force in the submission made by the Learned Advocate that the appellant was not in the knowledge of any mischief which has been committed by the importer. It is found that T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 of the appellant that the action which has been taken by the Department against the appellant, is not as per the provisions of CHALR. 4. The Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant, submitted that Shri Goswami commited the fraud beyond the scope of employment conditions with the appellant, for which, the Appellant could not be held responsible placing reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of G.M.Exports Vs. CC : 2006 (198) ELT 354 (Tri.-Bang.). He also submitted that the Forensic Report, which has been relied upon by the Department, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffence. 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 the above referred decision has held that power of suspension has an immediate nexus in time with the event. The same has to be resorted only when it felt necessary to immediate stop functioning of a Customs House Agent in order to safeguard the interest of the Customs House. The appellant in the present case was allowed to continue to act as CHA for the period of three years in which the case, it can be safely concluded that his continuation was not a danger to the Customs House. As such, we are of the view that such suspension was not called f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 proceed to decide the matter on merits. We find that the G card holder of the appellant, Shri Samar Goswami, has undertaken the job of clearance of export consignment from M/s Sungrowth Exports Private Limited without the approval of the director of the appellant company. After having come to know about the mischief done by Shri Goswami, the appellant filed a police complaint on 15.10.2003, and intimated to the Customs on 17.03.2003. Thereafter, the service of Shri Goswami was also terminated by the Appellant. The department has also o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 that the role of Shri Arif Patel was only for the clearance of the goods and for the clearance of the earlier consignment, nothing has been proved against the appellant, that he was having no knowledge of the modus operandi of the importation of the contraband goods by replacing aluminium scrap. Further, in this case the container was intercepted at Bombay port itself and it was opened and the appellant came to know about the container with contraband goods only after examination. In these circumstances, the appellant w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
