Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2013 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 119 - AT - CustomsSub letting of license - Payment charged for sub letting of license - Violation of Regulation of 12 of CHALR, 2004 - Held that:- if the Customs clearance has been done through intermediary and business was got through intermediary, the same is not barred by the provisions of CHALR, 2004 and it cannot be stated that the appellant has sub-let or transferred his licence - mere fact of bills raised on the intermediary cannot be held against the CHA firm to prove that the CHA licence was sub-let or transferred. Violation of Regulation 13(a) - Revocation of license - Held that:- Obtaining an authorisation from the importer does not mean that the same should be obtained directly; so long as the concerned import documents were signed by the importer, it amounts to authorisation by the importer and, therefore, it cannot be said that there has been a violation of Regulation 13(a). As regards the last charge, i.e. the appellant did not transact the business through his employee but through Shri Sunil Chitnis thereby violating the provisions of Regulation 13(b) - Both Shri Sunil Chitnis and Shri Ashish Patekar, authorised signatory of the appellant CHA, has admitted that it was Shri Sunil Chitnis, who undertook the clearance work on behalf of the CHA. Mere signing of the documents does not prove that the clearances were undertaken by the appellant CHA - Regulation 13(b) has been violated by employing Shri Sunil Chitnis for doing the clearance work of M/s. Advanced Micronics Devices Ltd. Revocation is an extreme step and a harsh punishment, which is not warranted for violation of Regulation 13(b). Accordingly, we are of the view that forfeiture of security tendered by the appellant CHA is sufficient punishment and revocation is not warranted - Decided partly in favour of Appellant.
|