9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ropriate authority in connection with importation of copper ingots by fictitious importers where the import licences were obtained by fraud. Certain consignments imported by one of such fictitious firm viz. M/s. Vinob Exports Pvt. Ltd. were handled by the present appellants. The investigators found that S/Shri Dhirendra Singh and Satyedra Singh who posed themselves as employees of the present appellant were not, in fact, employees, but were independent operators who used to pay Shri Maru, the director of the present appellants, a fixed some of money every month for utilisation of their CHA licence. Enquiry further showed that a total of 9 persons were operating in this manner. They were actually not employees but they were authorised as suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etails of Examination-in-Chief of a defence witness viz. Shri Sudesh Mether conducted on 3-1-98. The witness claimed that the company of which he was an employee did not have a CHA licence and that he was using the appellant's licence for the clearance of goods of the company on payment of monthly sums to the appellants. We find on perusal of this statement and other statements that the belief of the Commissioner that the CHA had allowed his licence to be used by other persons and that amounted to sub-letting of the licence was well founded. 5. As regards the lack of maintenance also what is given by Shri Maru is a weak defence on the ground of illness. The fact that the accounts were not maintained properly has not been denied at a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case have no relevance in the facts before us and that therefore, the ratio does not arise therefrom. 10. We have also seen the Single Member judgment in the case of A.N. Bhatt v. Collector of Customs [1991 (55) E.L.T. 580 (Tri.)]. We have examined this judgment. In the finding, the ld. Single Member observed that the evidence on record did not warrant any conclusion that there was evidence to the commission of any offence of the CHA. The ld. Single Member held that the CHA did not have any knowledge of the contravention committed by the exporter. On this ground, he allowed the appeal and directed restoration of the licence. 11. We observe that the facts before us in the present proceedings are entirely different from what ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
