TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 892X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority under Regulation 22(7) of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations (CHALR), 2004 and security deposit made by the appellant has been forfeited. 2.1 The charges against the appellant is that he allowed the CHA licence to be used by Shri Sitaram Jadhav for customs clearance of grossly over-valued export goods without verifying or confirming the correct value of the goods and also without verifying and confirming the existence of the export firms and thereby violating the provisions of Regulation 12 of CHALR, 2004. It is also alleged that the appellant did not obtain authorization from the exporter thereby violating the Regulation 13(a) of the CHALR, 2004. It is further alleged that the customs work was handled by Shri Sitaram ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d export invoices/documents from the exporter for filing shipping bills and also obtained authorization for undertaking the activity which was all that was required as per CHALR. Merely because they took assistance from the exporter or his employee while examining the goods, it cannot be held that the appellant has sub-let the licence. From the records of the case, it is evident that it was the appellant s employee, who obtained information from the exporter and filed shipping bills electronically. All the data which was fee to the system relating to exports were obtained from the exporter and the data were fed after obtaining clearance from the exporter relating to the accuracy of the data. Authorization from the exporter was also obtained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evocation of the CHA licence in the instant case be set aside. 3.2 The other charges against the appellant are of minor nature and does not attract revocation of licence and forfeiture of security deposit as ordered in the case of Frontier Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. would suffice. 4. The learned Dy. Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue while reiterating the findings of the adjudicating authority conceded that for similar offences, different treatments should not have been meted out and no reasons are forthcoming in the impugned order for such different treatments. 5. We have carefully considering the submissions made by both sides. 5.1 We find that in the instant case, there is no evidence available on record to show tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
