9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods at the customs house, reference made to the decision in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S K.M. GANATRA CO. [ 2016 (2) TMI 478 - SUPREME COURT ], where the Apex Court affirmed the view of the Bombay High Court in NOBLE AGENCY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI [ 2002 (2) TMI 171 - CEGAT, MUMBAI ], where it was held that '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.' The appellant has not only failed to comply with the provisions of CBLR, 2018, but have abetted the illegal exports and, therefore, no interference is called for. The misconduct is of the nature, which renders him unfit to transact the business of CB. The allegations made out are grave enough to justify the action initiated against him and, therefore, the punishment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Gaurav Aggarwal, detailed verification was not found to be necessary as the exporter came to his office before the first export along with that agent. As the CB failed to fulfil their obligations and violated the provisions of CBLR, with a view to further prevent the mis-use, license of the CB was suspended vide order dated 21.01.2020 by the Commissioner of Customs, which was subsequently confirmed vide order dated 21.02.2020. 6. Show cause notice dated 19.03.2020 was issued to the appellant for revocation of license, forfeiture of security deposit in terms of Regulation 14 read with Regulation 17 of CBLR, 2018 and imposition of penalty under Regulation 18 read with Regulation 17 of CBLR, 2018. The inquiry report dated 15.06.2020 submitted by the inquiry officer concluded that the CB has contravened the provisions of Regulation 10(a), 10 (d), 10 (e), 10(m) and 10(n). On arriving at the conclusion that the CB has acted in an irresponsible manner and abetted the act of illegal exports with intention to avail ineligible IGST refunds, the Commissioner revoked the CB license with forfeiture of the whole amount of security deposit and penalty of Rs.50,000 by the impugned order. Being ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lained him that goods were being exported to Dubai by this firm and goods had been purchased from different suppliers. Further, the statement of Shri Satya Prakash Kushwaha, proprietor of M/s. Prakash Kushwaha Co. was recorded, where he admitted that Shri M.K. Arora of M/s. Jetset Shipping Pvt. Ltd. had requested him to file the shipping bills for M/s Yellowsky Exports and export documents as well as payment, by way of cheque was received from the office of M/s. Jetset Shipping Pvt. Ltd. Thus, the two proprietors of the export firms were acting on behalf of Shri M.K. Arora and had nothing to do with the exports made by the exporter firms. Thus, we are of the view that the instant appeal is not covered by the earlier decision in the appellant s own case but has to be decided on its own merits. 11. We may now examine the statements made by Shri M.K. Arora. As per his statement dated 0306.2020, he met Shri Mithilesh Kumar Jha, proprietor of M/s. Yellowsky Exports, through an agent Shri Gaurav Agarwal and detailed verification of the exporter was not found to be required as the exporter came to his office before the first export along with that agent. The CB, while denying the allegati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o obtain authorisation from each of the companies or firms, by whom the CB is employed and produce such authorisation whenever required. The facts of the present case show that the proprietors of the exporting firms were not only dummy proprietors and were unaware of the activities of export rather they were acting on behalf of Shri M K Arora. In the circumstances, there is no question of rendering any valid authorization, which otherwise is not available on record and thereby the CB contravened the provisions of Regulation 10(a) CBLR, 2018. 15. Regulation 10 (d) requires the CB to advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act and other rules and regulations thereof, and in case of non-compliance is required to bring the matter to the notice of the department. As discussed above, the CB in his statement has pointed to the modus-operandi and the involvement of others, which according to him were actually controlling the export activities through the dummy proprietors. Though the CB was very well aware of the illegal exports yet he did not bring these facts to the notice of the department and kept quiet. In such circumstances, the CB failed to comply with the duty and ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e decision in Commissioner of Customs Vs. K.M. Ganatra Co. [2016 (332) ELT 15 (SC)], where the Apex Court affirmed the view of the Bombay High Court in Noble Agency Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2002 (142) ELT 84(Tribunal)], which is as under:- The CHA occupies a very important position in the Customs 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.... 20. The appellant has not only failed to comply with the provisions of CBLR, 2018, but have abetted the illega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
