9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se on the basis of prior intelligence DRI recovered and seized large quantity of 2GB memory Cards valued at Rs. 1,29,73,840/-which were not declared in the relevant two Bills of Entry both dt. 29.2.2012 filed through the appellants-CHA. Apparently, one Shri Manish Sanghani was using the License of the CHA. Further, the IEC Code of M.S. International in whose the name the goods were imported was lent to one Shri Manoj Kumar for monetary consideration. In his statement, Shri Manish Amlani, Director of Appellant CHA admitted having allowed use of the CHA License to Mr. Manish Sanghani whose own License under the name of M/s. National Shipping Agency had been suspended earlier. The Bills of Entry in the present case filed by Mr. Manish Sanghani ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f CHALR within 90 days from the date of Tribunals Order. However, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report later on 11.2.2013 which delayed the proceedings and time limit laid down in Board Circular No. 0/2010 dt. 8.4.2010 was not followed. On the specific charges it was his contention that the Commissioner had relied on some statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act which cannot be used as evidence against CHA under CHA Regulations. He relied on the case of Jasjeet Singh Marwaha Vs. Union of India 2009 (239) ELT 407 (Del. H.C.). On the charge of sub-letting of License [Regulation (9)] he submitted that Shri Manish Sanghani is their Directors cousin and the appellant had only taken logistic assistance from Shri Manish Sangh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Shri Manish Sangani (National Shipping Agency) has since been reinstated. In the present case, the importer had paid the duty on the appellant's persuasion and the appellant had not been made a party in the show cause notice issued under the Customs Act. In his written submissions, the Ld. Counsel contended that the Inquiry Officer's report on violation of Regulation 13(o) states that the person accused of using the License of appellant had deposed that he had taken copies of signatures of authorized signatory from the bank account, PAN Card etc. of the importer. Therefore, according to the Inquiry Officer, it cannot be conclusively said that steps had not been taken to verify the antecedents of the importer. 5. The Ld. AR appearing fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... requirement of Rule 12 would become otiose. Therefore, it is clear that Regulation 12 has been violated in this case. As regards Regulation 13(a), it is clear from the provisions that the CHA has to take an authorization from the importer. An authorization given to a person (other than License holder) who actually used the CHA License does not become a true authorization in the sense and spirit of Regulation 13(a). An authorization addressed to the appellant was produced during the inquiry but this was much later and no authorization was produced at the time of seizure of the goods. We have seen the authorization. It does not even show any contact number or telephone number of M.S. International. Further there is a huge gap between the word ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... importer. As regards Regulation 13 (o) which requires the CHA to verify the antecedents of the importer, the appellant have tried to evade the charge by producing copies of PAN, IEC of the importer and a copy of the signature verification of the importer by the Bank. As mentioned above, any person can produce such documents at a later stage. We find that the signature verification bears no date. The account number in the stamp of the Bank appears to be overwritten. No prudent banker would put his signatures without affixing the date of the signature and without understanding the significance of the purpose for which it will be used. The signature verification paper is not on a letterhead. Thus the attempt of the appellant to create evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , and therefore held that revocation is disproportionate to the offence. Although, in the present case also CHA has not been made a party in the main case enough evidence has been provided to establish violation of CHALR Regulations. In fact, in the case of SS Clearing & Forwarding Agency Ltd. the Hon'ble Bombay High Court observed that merely because the CHA was not joined as a co-noticee cannot be a ground to hold that the inquiry proceedings initiated against the CHA were vitiated. In the case of SS Clearing (supra) the goods had already been cleared and were seized subsequent to clearance. In the present case, the goods were seized on proper intelligence before clearance. The mischief was conducted by Shri Manish Sanghani, who was using ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
