Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 217 - AT - CustomsCharges under Regulation 13(d), (e), (i) & (n) of CHALR, 2004 - Revokation of CHA licence - Department contended that appellant is a CHA and was involved in gross irregularities such as misdeclaration in description, quantity as well as undervaluation and was was aware about the actual description as well as actual quantity of goods imported which is evident from the original copy of Bill of Lading bearing the details of the actual description and quantity, as the appellant on the backside of Bill of Entry had appended the same by putting signature and rubber stamp. However, the appellant-CHA had filed Bills of Entry with wrong description as well as less quantity of the imported goods and had facilitated and connived with the importer in the fraud to put loss to the Govt. exchequer - Held that: importers have resorted to giving forged and fabricated documents through fax to the appellant-CHA for filing the Bill of Entry by making minor alteration in the quantity or description or value, which cannot be noticed by a man of ordinary prudence. No facts are coming on record to indicate that the appellant-CHA have aided and abetted the importers in evasion of customs duty. However, evidences which have come on record indicate that the importers have misled successfully the CHA, Revenue and Bank by fabrication and forgery of documents being minor manipulation, which is not easily made out unless one compares the documents with the investigative eyes. The original and forged documents look all the same at the first glimpse. Only on careful scrutiny the difference and/or manipulation committed could be noticed. Therefore, in absence of any finding of aiding and abetting, the charges can not be hold under Regulations 13(d) & (e). The act of forgery of official documents or signatures were committed by the importer. Therefore, it cannot ipso facto form the ground for charging CHA under CHALR, 2004 for violation of Regulation 13(i). Some inadvertence or lack of efficiency took place on part of the CHA and that is because of a regular dealing with the said importers and not because of gross negligence or misconduct in discharge of duty. Therefore, the appellant needs to be visited with some penal action in view of violation of Regulation 13(n). The period of revocation restricts up to 30-11-2015 and also the amount of forfeiture reduced to 50% of security deposit. - Partly decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief
|