Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2014 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 771 - AT - CustomsRevocation of CHA License - Forfeiture of security - Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Violation of Regulation 13 of CHLAR - Attempt to smuggle red sanders - Held that:- From the records of the case and also the inquiry officer's report, it is seen that the authority letter issued by M/s. Leed Impex in favour of the appellant is a fabricated one. The proprietor of M/s. Leed Impex Shri Bhujwala Arif Yakub has confirmed to the Investigating authority that his firm has never issued any such letter in favour of M/s. Dhakane & Co. Therefore, the charge against the CHA of acting without an authorisation from the exporter is clearly established. In order to cover up the transaction, a fabricated letter has been produced by the CHA which has been found to be bogus as confirmed by the proprietor of M/s. Leed Impex. Thus the charge of contravention of Regulation 13(a) is established beyond any doubt. As regards the contravention of Regulation 13 (b) i.e. the CHA transacted the business through a person who was not its employee and who was not authorised to represent the CHA. This is clearly established from the statement of Shri Deepak Sejpal who in his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act has admitted that he was not authorised to attend the Customs clearing/documentation work and he used the CHA licence of M/s. Dhakane & Co. and it was done with the knowledge of Director Shri Ashok Pandurang Dhakane of the CHA firm. This is also corroborated by the statement of Shri Bala Baburao Jadhav and Shri Vinod Shinde, employees of the appellant CHA firm and therefore, the charge of contravention of Regulation 13 (b) of having transacted the business through unauthorized persons also stands proved. As regards the third charge of contravention of Regulation 13 (d), it is clear that the CHA never dealt with the exporter or the persons authorised by the exporter but dealt with another person, viz., Shri Deepak Dariyalal Sejpal. Therefore, the question of advising the client to comply with the provisions of the Act would not arise at all. In the light of these evidences available on record it is clear that the relevant provisions of the CHALR 2004 have been violated by the appellant. It is in view of these violations and trying to cover up the violations by the CHA, the licence issued to M/s. Dhakane & Co. has been revoked by the Commissioner. - Following decision of H. B. Cargo Services [2011 (3) TMI 816 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] - Decided against appellant.
|