9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icegate and that he has not authorized anyone; during his meeting with Shri Manjeet Singh he was offered many clients in lieu of the license; Shri Manish Kumar Shrivastav assured him to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month; Shri Manjeet Singh in fact paid Rs. 15,000/- for the renewal of the license; the custom broker got two lakhs for allowing four persons to represent his firm; he received all the payments from AS clearing belonging to Shri Manjeet Singh. We find that the appellant custom broker has allowed his license to be used by unauthorized persons for pecuniary gains. We find that such a casual behavior by the appellant is certainly breach of the trust reposed on the custom broker by the department. Any continuation of the license would have been detrimental to the interest of the revenue and the exporters. Therefore, we hold that the revocation of license has been correctly done. However, having said so we are of the considered opinion that the penalty imposed should be commensurate with the omission or commission. We find that revocation of license itself is enough punishment in such cases. As the security deposit is ordered to be forfeited imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed sanders is not grown around Mundra and the view taken by the forest guard was only prima facie one. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that there is no evidence that the red sanders were stuffed in the container by the appellant or the same was in the knowledge of the appellant; the impugned container TTNU-1415150 was sealed by the Customs under their supervision; though, the documents are admittedly missing, the goods were examined by Customs and no contraband was noticed as per the statement of Junior Officer of the CONCOR, Shri Satrughna Kumar; there are reasons to believe that the container was tampered with and contraband were stuffed midway as per the modus operandi of the smugglers as observed by the Tribunal in the cases of Vandana Global Ltd.-2023 (7) TMI 72-CESTAT MUMBAI and CC Vs Trans Asia Shipping Pvt. Ltd. - 2008 (12) TMI 516-CESTAT CHENNAI. 5. Learned Counsel submits that the allegation that the appellant has violated the Regulation 10(b) of CBLR, 2018 is baseless; he has not shared his ID/ Password or Dongle with Shri Manish Shrivastav; he has himself uploaded the documents; this was confirmed by the appellant in his statement dated 04.04.2022; there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the allegation of violation of Rule 13(3) of CBLR, 2018 is baseless; as Shri Mandeep Singh was not his employee and Shri Mandeep Singh or anybody else for that matter was not a G-Card holder of the appellant; Shri Mandeep Singh was, in fact, holding the G-Card for some other Customs Broker and his name has not been endorsed in the name of the appellant; the appellant has only made an application to endorse the name of Shri Mandeep Singh as G/H Card holder for the appellant; however, the application is still pending; therefore, there is no violation of Rule13(3) of CBLR, 2018 5.5. Learned Counsel submits that there was violation of Regulation 13(12); even if it is assumed, if not accepted that the associates of the appellant indulged in smuggling of impugned goods, it does not ipso facto mean that the appellant has failed to exercise proper supervision; he relies on the following cases: * ARK Logistics (P) Ltd. - 2010 (261) ELT 648 (Tri. Bang.) * Shri Ganesh Shipping Agency - 2011 (271) ELT 236 (Tri. Bang.) * Worldwide Cargo Movers - 2006 (202) ELT 729 (Tri. Mumbai) * Falcon Air Cargo Travel Pvt. Ltd.- 2002 (140) ELT 8 (Del.) 6. Shri Pawan Kumar learned Authorized Represe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r penal action under CBLR, 2018. It is alleged that the appellant did not appoint any authorized representatives; either a "G card holder" or "H card holder" to transact business on their behalf; however, he has allowed Shri Manish Kumar Shrivastav to upload the documents for export; he has accepted the business proposal that Shri Manjit Singh had many clients and would handle 50-60 import/export documents per month and would pay Rs. 20,000/- per month to the custom broker. It is the defense of the appellant's customs broker that he has not violated any of the provisions of the CBLR, 2018;he has verified the KYC documents and did not find any discrepancy; custom broker is not required to physically verify the address of the importer and the custom broker does not have any wherewithal to ensure that the exporter operates from the address given by the exporter in the IEC; he has not shared his dongle, having ID and password of Icegate, with any person; he received the documents online from Shri Manish Shrivastav and accordingly uploaded in the Icegate and returned the documents by e-mail. The appellant submits that there have been several cases of fraud committed by gangsters who rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endent on the assurance given by Shri Manjit Singh that he knew that parties he dealt with; * He did not receive the documents from the exporters; he did not receive the payment also from the exporter; * He accepted that he violated Rule 13 of CBLR, 2018; * On being satisfied with the business proposal given by Shri Manjit Singh and handed over his license of renewal; the necessary fee for renewal was also paid by Shri Manjit Singh; * On the one hand the custom broker claims that he has not authorized anybody to act on his behalf on the other hand he submits that Shri Manjit Singh and Shri Manish Shrivastav were handling his work at the customs station and were also attending to the examination of the cargo. * He moved application for G-card/H-card at the instance of Shri Manjit Singh; he allowed Shri Manjit and Shri Manish Shrivastava to work on his behalf though the application for inclusion of four authorized persons working for his firm was pending; however, he claimed that he has not paid any salaries to his employees; * Though he obtained license in 2015, as he was engaged as manager in M/s Khanna Papers, Amritsar he could not indulge in customs clearing profile; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... important position in the Custom House. The Customs procedures are complicated. The importers have to deal with a multiplicity of agencies viz. carriers, custodians like BPT as well as the Customs. The importer would find it impossible to clear his goods through these agencies without wasting valuable energy and time. The CHA is supposed to safeguard the interests of both the importers and the Customs. A lot of trust is kept in CHA by the importers/exporters as well as by the Government Agencies. To ensure appropriate discharge of such trust, the relevant regulations are framed. Regulation 14 of the CHA Licensing Regulations lists out obligations of the CHA. Any contravention of such obligations even without intent would be sufficient to invite upon the CHA the punishment listed in the Regulations. …" 15. We find that Hon'ble Madras High Court held in the case of Sri Kamakshi Agency- 2001 (129) E.L.T. 29 (Mad.) has held as follows: "On perusal of the report of the Enquiry Officer as well as the orders of the respondents and the Tribunal, it is beyond doubt that the Applicant committed gross violation of the Regulation while acting as Customs House Agent. In fact, the App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tage of his access to the Department. The grant of licence to a person to act as Custom House Agent is to some extent to assist the Department with the various procedures such as scrutinising the various documents to be presented in the course of transaction of business for entry and exit of conveyance or the import or export of the goods. In such circumstances, great confidence is reposed in a Custom House Agent. Any misuse of such position by the Custom House Agent will have far reaching consequences in the transaction of business by the Custom House officials. Therefore when the Applicant who had thirty years of experience as Custom House Agent, when he paved the way for his Power of Attorney to indulge in serious malpractices which ultimately resulted in loss of revenue to the Custom House to the extent of more than 80 lakhs, there is every justification in the respondents in treating the action of the applicant as detrimental to the interest of the nation and pass the final order of revoking his licence. As far as the allegations levelled against the Applicant are concerned, it has been found established that the Proprietor of the Applicant Thiru Natarajan had signed on certai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
