Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 664 - AT - CustomsRestoration of CHA licence - evasion of customs duty - imported goods ‘polyester woven dyed fabrics/viscose polyester blended fabrics’ or ‘viscose polyester blended fabric’ - Inquiry under regulation 22 of the Regulation - compliance of statutory procedure - Held that: - Customs House Agent are required to be proficient in the customs operation and procedure and to ensure that importer/exporter posses appropriate bona fides and act in conformity with the Customs Act, 1962. The said consignments cleared through appellant, as agent, were violative of the declaratory provisions under the Customs Act, 1962. There is, however, no evidence on record to show that appellant was aware of the intent or modus adopted by the customer. Nor is there any allegation that appellant had contributed in deceiving the customs authorities - The need to advice a client would arise only if the agent was aware of any intent to misdeclare. We note that there is no evidence or finding that the appellant was aware of such an intent on the part of the client. There was, therefore, be no reason for the appellant to believe that the client was in need to advice the client to desert from their proposed action. As to subletting, we find that the impugned order has merely proceeded on the concatenation of the request for withdrawal of ‘G’ certificate and the fact of employment elsewhere subsequently as evidence that such individual was not an employee when the bills were filed. The time-line, as seen from the application for ‘G’ certificate furnished by the Learned Counsel for appellant, would evidence otherwise. It appears that Shri Momayya has not been established to be a former employee of the appellant-agent. Consequently the charge of sub-letting/transfer, as well as failure to handle the consignment through an authorised employee or personally, fails. An authority letter was indeed obtained from the ostensible importer and its existence has been acknowledged as such by the Settlement Commission. The Regulations do not require that each and every authorisation should be acknowledged by a customs officer. As long as authority letter is in possession of the agent, compliance with the Regulation cannot be disputed. It must also be noted that no evidence has been brought on record to demonstrate that the acts of commission and omission on the part of the importer is attributable to the appellant - no fault on the part of appellant established - licence to be restored - decided in favor of appellant.
|