Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1531 - CESTAT HYDERABADRevocation of CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - imposition of penalty - whether the appellant has indeed sublet his license to Shri Uma Mahesh who has filed the shipping bills in question in respect of their exporters without verifying the antecedents? - Held that:- The amount which is transferred to the appellant every month matches with the amount which he said was the fee he pays for subletting the license of the appellant. If the appellant had, himself, filed the shipping bills for the parties in question, he would have had to verify the antecedents of the exporters or at least their existence. If the exporters did not exist at the address indicated therein he should not have filed the shipping bills - there is strong force in the contention of the revenue that appellant had indeed sublet his license for the shipping bills in question to be filed. Shri S. Uma Mahesh had in fact indicated that he runs a separate company by name M/s VD Logistics which runs the business on its own using the license of the appellant. Retraction of statement during the cross examination - Held that:- When Shri S. Uma Mahesh had retracted the statement during the cross examination, it would have been proper for departmental officers to have further questioned him about the amounts being transferred at the rate of ₹ 25,000/- per month. When he said that he had not paid any amount to the appellant he should have been confronted with the bank transfers to establish that the license was, indeed, sublet to him by the appellant - we give the benefit of doubt to the appellant that he had, himself, got the shipping bills filed using the services of Shri S. Uma Mahesh. If that be so, the appellant has failed in discharging his obligation under Regulation 11(a) of CBLR, 2013 in not verifying the antecedents of the exporters and Regulation 17(a) in not supervising the work of his employees. For these violations, the penalty of ₹ 50,000/- imposed upon the appellant under Regulation 22 of CBLR, 2013 appears sufficient. On payment of the penalty, the appellant’s license will stand restored and the forfeiture of the security deposit also stands set aside. Appeal allowed in part.
|