9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellant had not complied with Regulations 14(a), (b), (d), (e) and (l) and 20(7) of the CHALR, 1984. The Inquiry Officer, appointed by the Commissioner, returned a report to the effect that the allegations in the show cause notice were maintainable. The CHA filed a statement of objection vis-a-vis the inquiry report. After hearing the CHA, ld. Commissioner passed the impugned order. 3. The case booked against the CHA was in relation to Shipping Bill No. 1690722, dated 22-10-2003 allegedly filed by the appellant (CHA) for M/s. Viva Granites (exporters) for export of goods declared as "cleft randams slabs viscon white". The cargo, upon examination, was found to be Red Sanders logs. In his statement, the CHA denied having filed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The Commissioner accepted the findings of the Inquiry Officer and held that the business of the CHA was being operated by the other four persons on commission basis. He also found that the CHA had misrepresented to the department that the other four persons were his employees and that he had obtained identity cards for them by such misrepresentation. Ld. Commissioner examined the conduct of the CHA and recorded a finding that he had failed to fulfil the obligations cast upon him under Regulations 14(a), (b), (e) and (l) and 20(7). He also noted that the CHA had been continuing the habit of allowing others to operate his licence even after detection of the above instance of misconduct by the department. 4. Challenging the above finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h circumspection on the basis of proven misconduct etc. of the CHA. There must be clear proof of the CHA having neglected to comply with the Regulations. In the instant case, ld. Commissioner of Customs revoked the appellant's licence mainly on the basis of the finding that the latter, by allowing his licence to be used by unauthorized persons for monetary consideration, failed to comply with various provisions of Regulation No. 14 and Regulation No. 20(7). The "unauthorised persons" referred to in the impugned order are S/Shri T.A. Mahesh, S.A. Lawrence, T.K. Ravichandran, and M. Premchand. These persons were claimed, by the appellant, to be his employees. Their identity cards were claimed, by the appellant, to have been obtained by him fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from all the above, we have noticed that the appellant has already gone without CHA business for nearly two years. This fact is a relevant consideration in the context of deciding whether the appellant should be permanently debarred from working as a CHA. It was on a similar consideration that a revoked licence was revived in the case of Nanda International (supra). The operative part of the order (in the cited case) relied on by learned counsel is extracted below : "..........we are of the considered view that, in sound exercise of discretion, this Tribunal can take an appropriate view in a case involving revocation of CHA licence, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, admittedly, the li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
