TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 842X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Customs can revoke the licence of the Custom House Agent and order for forfeiture of the security only if there is a failure on the part of custom house agent to comply with any of the provisions of the conditions of the bond, provisions of this regulations and any mis-conduct on his part - in the present case, there are no findings that the appellant had failed to comply with any of the regulations or has had engaged in misconduct on his part which renders him unfit to transact any business. In the absence of any such findings, it is held that the appellant is punishable with the revocation of the licences under the provisions of Regulation 19(8) of CHALR. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/420/2009 - 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty under Section 112A of the Customs Act, 1962 for the acts of omissions and commissions but no adjudication has taken place till today. Enquiry officer was nominated for the purpose of enquiring into the conduct of the appellant CHA to ascertain whether the appellant had violated the provisions of CHALR and whether the CHA licence given to the appellant should be revoked. Enquiry officer in his report dated 17-2-2009 has submitted that commissions and omissions of one Shri B. Nageshwara Rao, clearing Executive of the appellant herein has been confirmed and hence the CHA should be held responsible as per the provisions of Regulation 19 of CHALR, 2004. Coming to such a conclusion, the enquiry officer concluded that CHA has failed in his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. CC, New Delhi - 2002 (141) E.L.T. 284 (Tri.-Del.). (2) Worldwide Cargo Movers v. CC (General), Mumbai - 2006 (202) E.L.T. 729, and (3) Interport Impex Pvt. Ltd., v. CC, Mumbai - 1999 (107) E.L.T. 36 (Tri.). 6. Learned DR would argue that learned Commissioner has given a detailed reasoning in holding that the appellant is responsible for the acts of commissions and omissions of his employee. It was for the CHA to have an effective supervision over the conduct of employees in the transaction of business. 7. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. We find that the issue involved in this case is regarding the revocation of the CHA licence of the appellant for the mis-conduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regard to their employment. I agree with the report of the Inquiry officer that the CHA M/s. ARK Logistics Services (P) Ltd., have failed in exercising supervision over the activities of their employee, thereby contravening the provisions of Regulation 19(8) of CHALR 2004 and rendering themselves unfit to operate as CHA in the Customs station. 8. It can be seen from the above reproduced findings that there are no allegations and findings of the enquiry officer against the CHA as regards the violation of the provisions of CHALR. It is seen that the errors or commissions or omissions are committed by one Mr. Nageshwara Rao, clearing executive of the appellant but was not instructed by the appellant to do such an act. It is also seen tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order for forfeiture of the security only if there is a failure on the part of custom house agent to comply with any of the provisions of the conditions of the bond, provisions of this regulations and any mis-conduct on his part. In the given case before us there are no findings that the appellant had failed to comply with any of the regulations or has had engaged in mis conduct on his part which renders him unfit to transact any business. In the absence of any such findings we are not able to accept the contention of the adjudicating authority that the appellant is punishable with the revocation of the licences under the provisions of Regulation 19(8) of CHALR. We may reproduce the provisions of 19(8). The Customs House Agent shall exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the Tribunal in the case of Worldwide Cargo Movers also squarely covers the issue in favour of the appellant as it was held in that case that illegal acts, misdeed by an employee cannot be said to have been committed with knowledge or connivance of the CHA or in the course of his employment with the CHA hence CHA cannot be held responsible for such acts. 12. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of this case and noting that the there are no specific allegations against the CHA giving reasons for revocation of the licence, the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside and we do so. We set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any. (Operative portion of the order alrea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
