Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2007 (5) TMI 466

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion 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 the time being employed as Custom Ho .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t 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 provision envisages advising the client to comply with the provisions of said Act and in case of non-compliance, shall bring the matter to the notice of the Customs authorities. It was argued that nowhere in these provisions there was any mention of appending the purchase order by the Custom House Agent while preparing the documents. As regards charge No. III, which relates to the Regulation 14(1), the Custom House Agent was required to ensure that all the docum .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t 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 v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi - 2001 (136) E.L.T. 1042 (Tri-Del) 2. Maruti Transports v. CC, Chennai - 2004 (177) E.L.T. 1051 (Tribunal) = 2005 (66) RLT 187 (CESTAT-Che) 3. Landing and Shipping Agency v. Commissioner of Customs - 2003 (158) E.L.T. 78 (Tri-Kol). 8. It was further argued that it was the duty of Customs Officers to examine and verify the documents, and as per the Customs Preventive Manual, the duties were well defined in respect of Preventive Officers and also the Superintendent and the Custom House Agent is not supposed to perform .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... resented by him should be in accordance with the order. He also argued that the Custom House Agent was obliged to inform the customs authorities and should have brought the non-availability of purchase order to the notice of the said authorities. 11. We have waded through the record and heard both the sides at length. At the outset, we notice that there is discrepancy in the show cause notice itself with reference to article of charge No. I. According to Regulation 14(a), the Custom House Agent is obliged to obtain an authorization from the Company by whom he is employed as Custom House Agent and produce such authorization whenever are required by the authority as specified thereunder. It is, therefore, illogical to expect the Custom Hous .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he should have readily brought to the notice of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs. However, we do not find much substance with reference to articles of charges I and III referred to above as we do not find the appellant guilty on these charges. As regards the remaining charge (Article of charge No. II), it is clear that the appellant has not fulfilled the requirement under the Regulation as stipulated in Regulation 14(d). We find that the appellant has certainly failed to exercise adequate caution in dealing with this procedural requirement. In this context, it is also relevant to record the statement made by the C.H.A. (Shri K.K. Nair) in which, it is clear that he had full knowledge that the purchase .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates