9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... giving proper opportunity to the appellants, is not warranted – order set-aside and suspension revoked - department is free to conduct the enquiry and if warranted punish the CHA – Appeal allowed - C/362 of 2010 and C/456 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 16-12-2010 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, JJ. Represented by : Shri S.S. Sekhon, Advocate Represented by : Shri R.S. Sangia, SDR Per : Mr. B.S.V. Murthy; M/s. Kashyap Shipping Pvt. Limited is a Custom House Agent and in the impugned order, their license has been suspended on the basis of investigation. Suspension has been ordered on the ground that appellant had allowed Shri Brijesh Jayram Nath, Proprietor of M/s. Swastik Shipping Services to use his license for fra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the shipping bills. In the absence of any authorization from M/s. Kailashpati Chemicals and Minerals Industries in the name of CHA firm and in the absence of any signatures on the part of appellants in the shipping bills, it cannot be said that appellant was a party. Except for the statement of Shri Brijesh J. Nath, there is no other evidence. As regards unaccompanied baggage at Kandla port, it was submitted that the declaration was filed on the basis of documents presented by Shri Harish K. Katkoria and passenger has accepted the same. As regards no intimation of additional Directors, it was submitted that they were in the process of submitting the intimation. 3. We have considered the submissions made by the appellants. Initially the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore us is whether this incident would warrant suspension and continued suspension for more than eight months. As regards the mis-declaration of value of unaccompanied baggage, the appellants submitted that it was based on the declaration given by the passenger. On the other hand the finding of the Commissioner is that CHA has handled it. This is a matter which has to be enquired into and conclusion is arrived at. As regards intimation of additional Directors, we agree that it is not a serious omission to warrant suspension. Having regard to the gravity of the offence, nature of the offence and the records, we consider that the suspension for eight months is sufficient and further continued suspension without an enquiry to ascertain the tru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
