TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner to proceed with the enquiry in terms of Regulation 23 of the CHALR and directed completion of the enquiry at the earliest. The enquiry was conducted by an Enquiry officer who submitted an Enquiry Report. In the first case of short shipment of about 24 MTs of Polypropylene ropes, the Enquiry officer concluded that a case for cancellation of H Card authority on Shri Virender Singh was made out but that no case was made out for cancellation of CHA licence. In the second case also, the Enquiry officer has exonerated the CHA. However, the Commissioner has held that the fraud committed by Shri Virender Singh (in the case of short shipment of polypropylene ropes) took place with the connivance of the employee of the CHA and in the normal course of business of CHA and therefore, liability of the CHA as an employer cannot be wiped out. In the second case, the Commissioner has held that even if Shri Mukesh Goel did not inform or take the CHA partners into confidence regarding export of hashish, the liability of CHA as an employer for acts of omission or commission of his employee in the normal course of business of the CHA cannot be ruled out. For this reason, he has held that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t established. From the above facts, it is also clear that the shipping bill has been prepared and filed by Shri Virender Singh, employee of the CHA without bringing it into the registers and business accounts of the CHA, and in his personal capacity. As regards the CHA M/s. Lohia Travels Cargo, the charge of abetment to the fraud is not established, and hence I drop the proceedings against the CHA under the Customs Act, 1962. 4. The Enquiry officer has also held that no case is made out for cancellation of the licence. In the second case, there is no evidence that the CHA had any knowledge of the concealment of hashish in their consignment exported by M/s. Shalimar Handicrafts where the bill of entry was filed through the CHA. The finding of the Enquiry officer is that Shri Mukesh Goel, employee of the CHA ventured into the activity of getting the export of goods cleared, that Shri Mukesh Goel misused his authority and never informed the CHA and since that the whole activity was carried out without the knowledge of the CHA, the CHA cannot be charged with violation of the CHA Licencing Regulation. The relevant extract of the Enquiry officer report is reproduced below : 18 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Mukesh Goel, the H authority holder admitted that he had got cleared the export consignment without the knowledge of CHA and in collusion with one Mr. Siddiqui, as introduced by one Mr. Gupta. In the statements, as quoted in the show cause notice, CHA partner and Mr. Mukesh Goel clarified this position. The copies of statements are not available and though an effort was made to trace Shri Mukesh Goel through CHA, he could not be contacted. As per the show cause notice and statements cited in show cause notice, Mr. Mukesh Goel ventured into the independent activity of getting export goods cleared. The CHA was not aware of it. Shri Goel was only H authority holder and was not expected to sign any document. No evidence of CHA charging any commission or getting any monetary benefit from Shri Mukesh Goel for subletting licence has been discussed in show cause notice. Thus, CHA can not be said to have failed to comply with regulation 13 of CHALR in this regard. The export consignment of said M/s. Shalimar Handicrafts was not attended to by CHA, as discussed in show cause notice and Shri Mukesh Goel tried to misuse his authority by independently attending to this consignment. Si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same. I find that these two employees tried to be adventurous and misuse the authority given to them. However if any alertness would have been shown by any customs official they could have been caught at the initial stage. Being H authority holder they were not supposed to sign any document and therefore they could not have filed these shipping bills for processing. However, it is a fact that they did get away with filing and completing all the formalities of export. They would have also used the stamps of CHA - since the copies of documents such as shipping bills are not available these facts can not be verified. The adventurous activities of employees can be noticed by vigilant employer and CHA lacked that vigilant alertness. However, this drawback alone can not be treated as sufficient cause to revoke their licence which is the only source of business for CHA and their employees. A word of caution may be sufficient so that they remain alert in future. However, the whole process of investigation, issuance of show cause notice, suspension of licence - order of which was later on revoked, expiry of temporary permission to renew licence etc. are sufficient troubles for CHA to g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
