9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1021X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... security deposit of the CHA. 2. The facts of the case are that, on prior intelligence, a container was found to contain cigarettes valued at Rs. 4.95 crores and furniture valued at Rs. 9.88 lakhs instead of furniture only as declared in the bill of lading in the name of M/s Toyo India. Investigations revealed that M/s Sea Speed Logistics Pvt Ltd, the logistics company in this case, had been clearing import consignments in the name of dummy IEC holders using the CHA license of the appellant for which they paid fixed charges per container to the CHA. Investigations also indicated that in the past, 10 consignments through which cigarettes were smuggled were cleared by the CHA. For customs clearance work in the Customs area, M/s Sea Speed had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmissions 5. The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant is that even though the appellant had not retracted the statements taken at the time of investigations, during the enquiry proceedings it was clarified by the appellant and the logistics company that the license was not transferred by the CHA. The logistics company was referring all its clients to the appellant for undertaking the work of clearance of goods from customs. The appellant were charging M/s.Sea Speed on per container basis for the consignments cleared for them and there is no evidence that the payments were received from M/s Sea Speed for allowing them to use the CHA license. M/s Sea speed was merely providing a one-stop solution to clients and ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot violated. The IEC code was validly issued to Toyo India by DGFT and therefore, there is no question of violation of Regulation 13 (o) as the appellant produced an authorisation letter from the importer to the enquiry officer. The learned Counsel relied on the case of Ashiana Cargo Services Vs. Commissioner Delhi High Court 2014 (302) ELT 161 (Delhi) in which the Honble Delhi High Court set aside the revocation even though that case was more serious inasmuch as narcotics was smuggled. 6. The learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of revenue reiterated the findings of the Commissioner. He relied on the Bombay High Court judgement in the case of Worldwide Cargo Movers 2010 (253)ELT 190 (BOM) in which the Hon'b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roborated by the statement of Shri.Nayan Gor director of M/s Sea Speed. We find that accepting business through a logistics company, that is M/s Sea Speed, by itself is not a violation of the CHALR. This has been held in various Tribunal judgements such as Commissioner Vs. Chaganlal Mohanlal & Co., - 2006 (203) ELT 435 (Tri-Mum). Therefore, the finding of Commissioner that M/s Sea Speed, being a logistics company, should not be aiding in the customs clearance work is unfounded. Even the payment mode by cheque on per container basis cannot and does not lead to the conclusion that the CHA had transferred the license to M/s Sea Speed. Once it is admitted that the CHA got his clients through an intermediary that is M/s M/s.Sea Speed, the violat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do. 11. Regarding Regulation 13 (b), the directors of both the appellant as well as the logistics company admitted that the work of customs clearance was looked after by employees of M/s Sea Speed. It was also admitted that the employees were on the payrolls of M/s Sea speed but were doing customs clearance work on the basis of customs passes got issued by the CHA for his company. The appellant have put up a weak defence in claiming that the employees were working under him. They have not been able to show any proof to the effect that the salaries of the employees undertaking customs clearance work were paid by them. Therefore, by not transacting business through approved employees, the appellant are guilty of violating Regulation 13 (b). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ving smuggling of cigarettes with duty evasion of Rs. 20.79 crores in the name of dummy IEC holders by subletting of CHA license makes it incumbent upon the CHA to receive the most rigorous punishment. We do find it a little strange that, on the one hand the Commissioner is almost accusing the appellant of aiding in duty evasion of a large amount, yet, on the other hand he has not implicated the appellant under the Customs Act. In fact we find that the Commissioner has directly accused the appellant CHA of abetting the smuggling of foreign cigarettes. In paragraph 52 of the order, the Commissioner states that "Hence the present case where the CHA by their acts of omission and commission have aided and abetted and organised syndicate indulgi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
