Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2014 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 290 - AT - CustomsRevocation of CHA License - Forfeiture of security - Ignorance of the conduct/activities of CHA`s Employees - ‘G’ Card and ‘H’ Card Authorisation – Forgery by signature – Whether there is lack of supervision on part of appellant as CHA over work of the authorized G Card holder who transacted the business in Custom House – Held that:- This Court cannot find fault with the Commissioner`s observation that appellant had not taken the precaution of meeting importer personally - CHA allowed the documents for import to be handled by the employee Shri Vipin Kumar on behalf of the firm, who prepared the check list and signed the bill of entry by forging the signature of the appellant - Moreover 2 copies of ‘H’ cards and ‘G’ cards were issued to 2 friends of Shri Vipin Kumar - It is not the case that appellant had no means to have proper control over the employees and even those steps have not been taken by CHA in this case especially in view of the fact that he has 12 branches all over the country. Appellant`s only claim before the original authority as well as before this Court is that Shri Vipin Kumar did forging on his own and he did not know it - Even this claim has been found to be baseless and Commissioner made an observation that this was not a one off instance - These observations have not been contradicted by showing any evidence or making any submissions - In fact after the amendment of CHA Regulation in 2010, there is another regulation introduced which requires a CHA to verify who is the importer etc. - This is really not relevant and may not be proper for consideration since this was not the point which was taken into account by the Commissioner or in the earlier proceedings - This is another aspect which also goes against conduct of CHA - According to Regulation 13 the CHA is required to verify correctness of the IE code No - Therefore all the claims of the appellant go against him rather than in his favour – Relying upon CC v. Worldwide Cargo Movers [2006 (11) TMI 281 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] – In view of Regulation 19(8), no merit is found in the appeal and is rejected – Decided against Assessee.
|