9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on was issued after taking into consideration the inquiry officers' findings and the written submissions dated 23-7-2004 from the appellants in which all the charges were denied. The learned Commissioner of Customs had based his conclusion mainly on the basis of three charges levelled against the Custom House Agent (appellant) which refer to violation of Regulation 14(a), 14(d) and 14(1). For the sake of convenience, these three clauses under Regulation 14 of Custom House Agent Licensing Regulations, 1984 are reproduced below :- "14. Obligations of Custom House Agent. - A Custom House Agent shall : (a) obtain an authorization from each of the companies, firms or individuals by whom he is for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orporated and it cannot be said that there is no authorization here. In addition to this, the appellant had also relied upon the statements dated 10-9-97 and 11-9-97 of Shri Bhavesh Gandhi, Director, stating that the clearances were effected by utilizing the services of Alankar Shipping and Clearing Pvt. Ltd. (appellant). 4. It was also argued before us that the show cause notices issued, in this case had not appreciated the fact that Indian Navy was not the importer in this case and hence, there was no obligation whatsoever on the part of the appellant to obtain authorization under the Regulation. 5. As regards charge No. II, which was based on alleged violation of the provisions of Regulation 14(d), it was stated that the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Rules and that when no rules were framed, obviously there cannot be any liability : 1. Garware Shipping Corpn. Ltd. v. J.H. Joglekar - 1984 (15) E.L.T. 375 (Bom) 2. Malabar Steamship Co. Ltd. v. Addl. Collector of Customs - 1990 (48) E.L.T. 378 (Bom) 3. Addl. Collector of Customs v. Mogul Line Ltd. - 1990 (48) E.L.T. 349 (Bom). 7. With regard to charge No. I, the learned Counsel relied upon the following citations for the proposition that once the bills of entry were signed by the importers themselves, there was no need for any authorization from them as envisaged in Regulation 14(a) :- 1. P.P. Dutta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained from such imports by him, thus violating the provisions of Regulation 14(a). He further, argued that while furnishing shipping bill, the Custom House Agent is also supposed to file original document such as invoice packing list, AR 4 etc. and unless insistence comes, such goods were to be sent to naval dockyard. It was necessary that the relevant purchase order should have been procured and produced along with shipping bill by failing to do so, there is clear violation of Regulation 14(d). In the context of Regulation 14(1), it could be held that he should have ensured that all the relevant documents that are prepared or presented by him should be in accordance with the order. He also argued that the Custom House Agent was obliged to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rts and imports. It is also on record that none of the importers in this case had ever disowned the Custom House Agent as not authorised by them. On the contrary, in two statements recorded on 10-9-97 and the other on 11-9-97 Shri Bhavesh Gandhi had endorsed his role. It has been argued that the Custom House Agent had not appended the purchase order and in any case the Customs officer would have scrutinized the completeness or otherwise of the documents filed before them. Rule on Custom House Agent is well defined under the Licensing Regulations that if it came across any shortcomings or non-compliance on the part of the importers, he should have readily brought to the notice of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
