Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2014 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 688 - AT - CustomsRevocation of CHA License - Forfeiture of Security Deposit under Regulation 22(7) of CHALR, 2004 - Forgery of documents - Export of goods without license - Quantum of punishment - Held that:- Partner of the appellant firm who forged the signatures of Shri Damle has clearly admitted in his statements dated 4-4-2008, 7-4-2008 and 19-9-2008 that he had forged the initials of Shri Damle in the export documents submitted to the customs authorities. Further the letter dated 15-3-2008 from the Asst. Drugs Controller’s Office clearly says that the signature/initial of Shri Damle appearing on the export documents appeared to bear forged signature and they had given no clearance/NOC to the exporter with respect to the export of the impugned goods, namely, Zoledronate. Thus the statement of Shri Ketan Adhia coupled with the reply of the Asst. Drugs Controller’s office clearly establishes the fact that the signature of Shri Damle appearing in the export invoices is fake and hence forged. There has not been any retraction of his statements by Shri Ketan Adhia. appellant has not adduced any evidence to show that the statement of Shri Ketan Adhia, a partner of the CHA firm was not voluntary or was not truthful. If that be so, the appellant on first available opportunity would have retracted the statement. They have not done so - statement given by Shri Ketan Adhia has to be accepted as an admissible evidence and due weightage has to be given to the said statement - CHA cannot commit all kinds of violations in respect of export transactions and claim that no loss has been caused to the exchequer - exporting firm did not have a manufacturing license for undertaking the export of the said item from the Food and Drugs Administration. If that is so, the goods are prohibited goods for the purpose of export and by exporting such prohibited goods, the Foreign Trade Policy would get violated. If prohibited goods are allowed to be exported, it badly damages the reputation of the country as an exporter and such action would cause severe economic disadvantages to the nation. The proceedings under the Customs Act is for violation of the provisions of the Customs Act, while CHALR, 2004 deals with the conduct of the CHA. If there are serious lapses on the part of the CHA, he is liable for the penal consequence as provided for in the law. In the present case we find that the CHA has resorted to forgery of export documents, which cannot be regarded as minor or inconsequential - Following decision of Jasjeet Singh Marwaha v. Union of India [2009 (2) TMI 57 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Decided against appellant.
|