9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mumbai investigated a case relating to undervaluation and mis-declaration of a consignment of shoes illegally imported by M/s. Dilip Impex. It was cleared through JNPT, M/s. C.P.Mota & Co, CHA No.11/682 was handling the customs clearance of the said consignment of shoes and it was found that they had aided and abetted the act of smuggling of the goods. Accordingly, an Inquiry was conducted against the CHA under the provisions of CHALR,2004 and following charges were made:- 2.2 Under Regulation 12 of the CHALR, 2004 - CHA licence cannot be sold or otherwise transferred. In the case under consideration, M/s. C.P.Mota & Co. allowed one Shri Dyaneshwar Ganpat Bhoir to use the licence for a monetary consideration which is in violation of Regul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CHALR, 2004. An enquiry was conducted and the Inquiry Officer held all the above charges to be proved and thereafter the matter reached the Commissioner, who accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer, revoked the licence under Regulation 22(7) of the CHALR, 2004. Hence the appellant is before us. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in this case the Inquiry Office did not follow the proper procedure for conducting the enquiry. They did not produce any prosecution witnesses and did not allow cross examination of the witnesses for establishing the charges against them. Therefore the CHA was deprived of an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses based on which the charges have to be proved. 3.1 On the other hand the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stablished that Shri Chandrakant Popatlal Mota sub-let his licence to Shri Dyaneshwar Ganpat Bhoir and Shri Dyaneshwar Ganpat Bhoir was not an employee of CHA firm at all. Further it was on record that Shri Dyaneshwar Ganpat Bhoir who bought in the licence was paying commission to the CHA for using his licence and the CHA did not know the importer at all. Therefore, the charges against the CHA are conclusively established. 4.1 The learned A.R. also relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Jasjeet Singh Marwaha vs Union of India - 2009 (239) ELT 407 (Del.) wherein it was held that the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 can be used as evidence in the CHALR proceedings. He also reli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a promised him Rs.3,500/- per consignment and on the basis of documents with the Customs. The averments of Shri Dyaneshwar Ganpat Bhoir was also confirmed by the statement of Shri Thakur Prasad Shukla recorded on 28.10.2008 by the DRI. Further, SHri Chandrakant Popatlal Mota, in his statement recorded under Section 108 on 19.09.2008, had clearly admitted that Shri Dyaneshwar Ganpat Bhoir had been giving him consignment-wise commission and he had obtained a Customs pass shoeing Shri Dyaneshwar Ganpat Bhoir as an employee of M/s. C.P.Mota & Co. and Shir Dyaneshwar Ganpat Bhoir had been independently doing the clearance work from Nhave Sheva and Mumbai using the CHA licence of M/s. C.P. Mota & Co. Shir Dyaneshwar used to pay him a commission o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defence witnesses, once Shri Jagdish Bhanushali and the another one Ms. Bharati Umakant Gavda. Shri Jagdish Bhanushali deposed before the Inquiry Officer that he knew Shri Dyaneshwar Bhoir for around three years as an employee of M/s. C.P. Mota & Co. whereas from the records, it seen that Shri Jagdish Bhanushali was with C.P. Mota & Co. only for the period from March 2008 to December 08, less than one year, which shows that the said witness's statement is completely unreliable. Similarly, the other defence witness Ms. Bharati Umakant Gavda stated that Shri Dyaneshwar Bhoir has been drawing salary from April, 2008 and apart from the salary she was not aware of any other payment made to Shri Dyaneshwar Bhoir. From the statement made under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cuments brought in by Shri Dyaneshwar Bhoir. Accordingly, violation of Regulation 13 (d) and (n) of CHALR, 2004 are also proved. Similarly the allegation that CHA did not know the importer at all in violation of Regulation 13 (a) is also proved. Therefore, the conclusion of the adjudicating authority that the CHA has violated the provisions of CHALR, 2004 by sub-letting his licence and also undertaking various transactions in violation of the CHALR provisions stands clearly established and his findings in this regard cannot be faulted. 5.3 The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of OTA Kandla Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that once breach of statutory regulations and misconduct by misusing CHA licence is established, revocation of licence c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
