Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2023 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 989 - AT - CustomsDropping of all proceedings initiated under Regulation 22 of the CHALR-2004 against the CHA M/s Gee Pee International, holder of CHA licence (revocation of CB license reversed) - Department’s essential contention is that CHA’s action, instead of associating with the Customs Authorities appeared to have done just opposite by resorting to suppression - HELD THAT:- The present appeal is a clear case of appalling apathy on the part of department in initiating a frivolous litigation when from para 15(iii) of Statement of Facts of their appeal no wrong doing appear to be forthcoming on the part of the CHA - whatever be the allegation regarding mis-declared value of imports, these is not a shred of evidence to impute the CHA, with this alleged imputation of misdeclaration and ascribe the onus on him. Also it is observed from the order passed by the LD. Commissioner that as far as knowledge on the part of the CHA about the “code words” and access to purchase registrar of Ma Vabatarini Enterprises, was concerned, it does not come out that the CHA was well aware of and had prior knowledge of the code words/numbers and wholesale market price mentioned in the purchase register of Kolkata based trader - Moreover, the appellants had no access to the Purchase Register of M/s Ma Vabatarini Enterprises. It is seen from the records, that it is categorically stated in the concerned papers that CHA had no role to play in price negotiations between the importers and Shri Dipak Das. The CHA is stated to have a limited role that of arranging the delivery of goods from the Customs area (bonded warehouse) and make arrangements for physical delivery in the presence of the officer of the department. The CHA appellants, merely filed the various bales of entry on the basis of invoices received from the importers and that there is no finding that such invoices received from overseas supplier were fake or fabricated. In short, there is nothing to impute any suppression or mis-statement on the part of the CHA. The entire case of the department is no better than a figment of imagination, based on presumption and attributing knowledge on part of CHA, without any material to support the same. Each case has to be looked at into its own facts and merits and the fact of cancellation of licence of some other CHA placed in similar circumstances cannot be any justification to mete out a similar treatment to another CHA. The department has not been able to demonstrate possession of knowledge of “code words” or that of the alleged misdeclaration of value on part of the appellant. There is nothing to establish that the CHA failed in suitably advising his clients or to report any non-compliance (of which obviously he ought to have knowledge) to the department’s notice or that the appellant failed in discharge of his duties with efficiency and alacrity. The appeal filed by the department fails miserably and is therefore dismissed.
|