Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2017 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 434 - AT - CustomsRevocation of CHA license - forfeiture of security deposit - penalty - it was alleged that the appellant - Held that: - the whole controversy has emanated out of a cat fight between the appellant and their ex-employee, who has admittedly made the complaint. From the submissions and facts on record, it emerges that in his statement recorded under Section 108, the complainant and ex-employee Shri V. Sivaraman, admitted that even after he had left the services of the appellant, he received compensation from them for the period 17.09.2012 to 01.02.2013 on mutual understanding, evidently to use the blank forms which were signed by him. In reply to a question No. (5) Shri Sivaraman himself accepted the usage of signed blank forms by his employer. The appellant has pointed out that they had paid compensation of ₹ 2,00,000/- by way of cheque dated 13.03.2013 to Shri V. Sivaraman. It then appears that the complaint by Shri V. Sivaraman is the resultant of a mutual understanding gone sour. While the appellant has definitely not complied with the obligation caused on him under Regulation 11 B of CBLR 2013, to transact business either personally or duly approved employee, there is no allegation that the blank bills of entry wherein the signature of the ex-employee which were improperly used, were forged by them - There is also no allegation that the goods imported through these bills of entry were found having violated any customs laws in force - the revocation of license of the customs broker for this particular infraction, in our view, is an overkill, not commensurate with the gravity of the offence and will required to be set aside - the penalty of ₹ 50,000/- imposed on the appellant would be sufficient. Appeal allowed in part.
|