9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 835X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has set aside the penalties imposed under Section 114 on the present Appellant and their Director. The revocation of license is a very harsh measure and is liable to be set aside - However as admittedly some minor contraventions have taken place, it is found that CHA is required to be penalised with Rs.10,000/- which has already been done by encashing Bank Guarantee No.2/2007. Appeal disposed off. - Customs Appeal No. 2564 of 2011 - FINAL ORDER No. A/30054/2023 - Dated:- 17-4-2023 - MR. R. MURALIDHAR (JUDICIAL) AND MR. A.K. JYOTISHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Ashwani Pahwa, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri P. Amaresh, AR for the Respondent. ORDER Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that they have come before the Tribunal being agitated by the OIO passed by the Adjudicating Authority wherein he has enforced the security of Rs. 10,000/- furnished by the Appellant as Bank Guarantee No. 2/2007 dt. 12.03.2007. Vide this OIO, the CHA License bearing No. 4/89 of M/s Tass Clearing Services Pvt Ltd has been revoked. He submits that for the earlier OIO passed on the same issue, the Appellant had approached the Tribunal vide their Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the finding of the Inquiry Officer that possible knowledge of the designs of the exporter to defraud the Government is not based on any evidence except the suspicion of the Inquiry Officer; that the finding of the Inquiry Officer that CHA has signed blank Customs documents is contrary to his own findings that there is no verification of person filing Shipping Bills at the EDI Service Centre and that the finding with regard to violation of Regulation 13(d) is not correct and tenable; that there is not even a semblance of evidence on record to prove culpability of the CHA in the alleged act of negligence in signing the documents knowing that the goods to be exported on the said documents are liable for confiscation and as such the revocation of license of the CHA is incorrect and unlawful . [emphasis supplied] 3. The Adjudicating Authority in his discussions and findings has held as under: 11. I have gone through the records of the case, the observations of the Hon ble CESTAT in their Final Order No. 1243/2010 dt. 19.08.2010 and the submissions made by the CHA after having received the attested copy of the Inquiry Report. The issue before me for decision is whether the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty of the Commissioner of Customs to take appropriate action against the CHA to make sure that such errors, with potential to cause huge losses to the exchequer are not repeated. The Jurisdictional Commissioner of the Customs station, is responsible to ensure that Customs House Agents operating in the Customs Station complies with the provisions of CHALR, 2004. [emphasis supplied] 4. The Learned Counsel submits that the Adjudicating Authority has not rebutted any of the submissions made in their reply and has not given any finding as to why the submissions made by the Appellant are not acceptable to him. Therefore, the OIO is to be termed as Non-Speaking Order. He also submits that on the related issue, a Show Cause Notice was issued to M/s Seema Enterprises, Mumbai and other noticees including the present noticee and their Director seeking to know as to why penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. After following due process, the Adjudicating Authority in that case imposed penalty of Rs.5 Lakhs on the present Appellant and Rs.3 Lakhs on their Director. Being agitated by this OIO, the Appellants had filed Appeal Nos. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ground that CHA failed to file authorization letter. I therefore, concur with view expressed by the Ld. Member (Judicial) that penal action against the CHA and its Director is not sustainable. 5. In view of the foregoing, the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal, we hold that the impugned order imposing penalties on these two appellants is unsustainable and liable to be set aside and we do so, the penalties are set aside and the appeals are allowed . [emphasis supplied] 5. Therefore, the Learned Counsel submits that the present OIO is required to be set aside. 6. Learned AR submits that the Appellant had contravened the provisions knowingly and the Adjudicating Authority has correctly revoked the License and also appropriated the Bank Guarantee of Rs.10,000/-. He submits that they rely on the case of CCEx, Hyderabad-II vs HB Cargo Services presided by the Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh as reported in 2011 (3) TMI 816. Therefore, the Learned AR submits that the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard both sides. We find that even at the first stage the Tribunal did not find the contravention to be grave in nature as can be seen from the extract of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
