9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts and evidence of the case. Regulation 21 empowers the Commissioner to suspend or revoke CHA licence depending on the gravity of the offence committed by the CHA. The Inquiry Officer appears to have reasonably assessed the gravity of offence committed by the appellant and, accordingly, recommended suspension of licence. The Commissioner chose to revoke the licence after his own assessment. But he has not stated good reasons to resort to the extreme step of revoking the licence. The reliance placed by the appellant's Counsel on Falcon Air Cargo Travel [ 2001 (11) TMI 137 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] seems to be apposite in this context. In that case, the Tribunal set aside revocation of licence after recording a finding that the offence found against the CHA was not grave enough to warrant revocation of the licence. We have considered the other decisions also and we find, that this Tribunal exonerated Customs House Agents, where there was no evidence on record to show that the CHAs had knowledge of their employees' fraudulent acts. In the instant case, we have also not come across any evidence of fraud or collusion involving the appellant. Thus, we hold that the licence issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show cause notice, addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Inquiry Officer), they denied the above charge. The Inquiry Officer reported that the appellant had failed to comply with the provisions of Clauses (a), (b), and (l) of Regulation 14. He recommended for immediate suspension of the CHA licence but suggested that a lenient view be taken with regard to forfeiture of security deposit as a penalty had already been imposed on the CHA by the Commissioner of Customs (Exports). The appellant was provided with a copy of the Inquiry Report and subsequently heard by the adjudicating authority viz. Commissioner of Customs (Port-Import), before whom they inter alia pleaded as under :- (i) The Bill of Entry was filed and steered by a person who was not on their pay rolls and this fact was brought to the attention of the Customs authorities. (ii) The forged Bank Guarantees were not submitted by them. (iii) They did not collude with the importer in respect of clearance of the subject import. (iv) They had not violated entire Regulation 14 and any lapse of theirs was only a minor one, which did not cause revenue loss. The appellant, in a subsequent letter, took the contention that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver, with regard to Regulation 14(d), it was submitted that there was no basis for the charge levelled in terms of this provision inasmuch as the factum of submission of forged Bank Guarantees was not known to any person including the Customs House till a communication from the Bank was received by the customs. Whatever documents were prepared and filed on behalf of the appellant was in accordance with orders relating to presentation of such documents. The impugned order did not disclose as to what document had been prepared and filed in breach of such orders and in what manner any such breach was committed. Therefore, the charge made with reference to Regulation 14(l) was also not sustainable. It was argued that a violation of Regulation 14(b) alone would not constitute sufficient ground for revocation of CHA licence, which was an extreme step resulting in the CHA and his employees being deprived of their livelihood. The licence could not be revoked on the basis of a finding of minor lapses or omissions of the CHA. It would be revoked only in the rarest of rare cases. Ld. Counsel relied on the following decisions :- (i) C.J. Joshi Sons v. Commissioner [1999 (113) E.L.T. 900 (Tri.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion in writing from his client for dealing with import or export. It was enough to get the signature of the importer/exporter on the Bill of Entry or the Shipping Bill, as the case may be. The very signing of the Bill of Entry/Shipping Bill by the importer/exporter amounted to authorisation. Therefore, in the instant case, the charge against the appellant that he had not obtained authorisation from Galaxy Exports for filing the Bill of Entry was not sustainable. In this connection, reliance was placed on the decision in P.P. Dutta v. Commissioner [2001 (136) E.L.T. 1042]. Ld. Counsel also sought to distinguish the cases of Skyways (supra) and Trans Shipping Service (supra) cited by the DR. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions and examined the case law. The ld. Commissioner found against the appellant breach of obligations under Clauses (a), (b), (d) and (l) of Regulation 14 of CHALR, 1984. With reference to Clause (a), it was found that the appellant had filed Customs documents without getting authorisation from the importer. We find that there is no dispute of the fact that the Bill of Entry, which was filed in the name of the appellant-CHA, was duly signed by the impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 14(b) which cast an obligation on CHA to transact business in the Customs station either personally or through an employee duly approved by the Assistant Commissioner (Customs) or Deputy Commissioner (Customs) designated by the Commissioner. In the instant case, admittedly, the Bill of Entry was filed by Shri Dasarathan, who was not an employee of the CHA at the material time. But it is an admitted fact that Shri Dasarathan had been authorised by the importer to file the documents and that such filing of the documents was done in the name of the CHA. The only defect pointed out is that Shri Dasarathan was not duly authorised by the Customs authorities for the purpose. In our view, this defect did not constitute grave offence for the CHA to be visited with the extreme penalty of revocation of licence. Any punishment should be commensurate with the gravity of the offence. Revocation of CHA licence can hardly be said to be commensurate with the above offence found against the appellant. The view taken by the Inquiry Officer appears to be preferable in the facts and evidence of the case. Regulation 21 empowers the Commissioner to suspend or revoke CHA licence depending on the gravity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
