Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2018 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 393 - CESTAT AHMEDABADRevocation of CHA License - it was alleged that Sh. Jaikishan B. Kotak (son of the Prop. of appellant firm), Bipin Pragi Kotak (husband of the prop. of the appellant custom broker), and Sh. Dinesh Ojha, an employee of the appellant firm, have actively participated in conspiring and organizing the smuggling - invocation of regulation 17(1), 17(9), 11(e) and 11(i) of Custom Broker License Regulation 2013. Held that:- A perusal of regulation 17(1) shows that a custom broker is required to verify the antecedents of the employees before hiring by identifying the antecedents and identity at the declared address by using reliable independent authentic documents, data or information. It is seen that the charge made in the proceedings does not clearly bring out as to how the custom broker has failed in this regard - Any action by any employee in a personal capacity, not in transaction of business of the custom broker, cannot be held against the custom broker. Similar Regulation 11(e) is in respect of the transactions between the custom broker and his client. In the instant case the importer was not client of the Custom Broker and hence no charge under Regulation 11(e) can be substantiated. The charge under Regulation 11(i) relates to Customs Broker attempting to influence the officials of the Custom Station in any matter. In the instant case, there is no charge that the custom broker tried to influence the officials of the Customs Stations. The charge if any of influencing the officer is against Shri Jaikishan B. Kotak (son of the Prop. of appellant firm) and Shri Bipin Pragi Kotak (husband of the prop. of the appellant custom broker) of the Custom Broker and the Employee Shri Dinesh Ojha. Since there is no charge against the custom broker of attempting to influence the Customer Officer, the charge under Regulation 11(i) cannot be upheld. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|