TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, it is evident that the appellant had not obtained any authorisation from M/s H.M. Impex, a firm which was non-existent at the address given in the IE Code and whose proprietor (as mentioned in the IE Code) never contacted the appellant. The appellant filed documents in the name of a nonexistent firm without any verification whatsoever. The documents filed by CHA are treated with a certain degree of trust by the Customs and such trust was completely violated in the present case. The documents filed by CHA are treated with a certain degree of trust by the Customs and such trust was completely violated in the present case. Nothing can possibly be a graver mis-conduct on the part of a CHA than to file Shipping Bills of such high value in the name of a non-existent firm without making even preliminary enquiries about the genuineness of firm/company in the name of which the documents were filed. Such dereliction of duty on the part of a CHA, can potentially have even graver financial/security consequences. Thus the appellant totally failed to discharge its duties as CHA with utmost speed and efficiency and thereby grossly violated Rule 13 of CHALR, 2004. Such serious violation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant's) sales executive, one Shri Vijay Gupta approached Shri Lalit Kumar Katoch to file the shipping bills in the name of M/s H.M. Impex, Shri Lalit Kumar Katoch informed him (Shri Sunil Bhatia) about that (i.e. fling of shipping bills) and that he (Shri Sunil Bhatia) allowed Shri Lalit Kumar Katoch to handle the paper work. The Commissioner found the conduct of the appellant in gross violation of the CHALR, 2004 and revoked its CHA license and forfeited the security deposit. 3. The appellant has contended that its proprietor was not aware of the nature of goods and had no knowledge about the mis-declaration and the fraud attempted to be committed in connivance of Shri Lalit Kumar Katoch and that on the particular date the shipping bills were filed, he (i.e. the proprietor) was out of station. It also contended that revocation of licence is too harsh an action and prayed for setting aside the impugned order. It cited judgement of CESTAT in the case of M/s Pranil Shipping Vs . CC, Jamnagar vide Final Order No. A/11432 dated 24.7.2014 in its favour. 4. The ld, DR, on the other hand argued that mis-conduct on the part of the CHA is very serious inasmuch as the shipping ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms Station by him show the name of the importer or exporter, as the case may be, and also ensure that he discharges his duties as Customs House Agent with utmost speed and efficiency and without avoidable delay. In the present case, it is evident that the appellant had not obtained any authorisation from M/s H.M. Impex, a firm which was non-existent at the address given in the IE Code and whose proprietor (as mentioned in the IE Code) never contacted the appellant. The appellant filed documents in the name of a nonexistent firm without any verification whatsoever. The documents filed by CHA are treated with a certain degree of trust by the Customs and such trust was completely violated in the present case. Nothing can possibly be a graver mis-conduct on the part of a CHA than to file Shipping Bills of such high value in the name of a non-existent firm without making even preliminary enquiries about the genuineness of firm/company in the name of which the documents were filed. Such dereliction of duty on the part of a CHA, can potentially have even graver financial/security consequences. Thus the appellant totally failed to discharge its duties as CHA with utmost speed and effic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or in interfering with the decision of a domestic authority. In a departmental proceeding one has to see whether the principles of natural justice are followed and the findings are justified from material on record-Once both these aspects are satisfied if an outsider Tribunal interferes, its findings and order will be improper and perverse which is what has happened in the present case. Similarly when one comes to the disciplinary measures, one must not lose sight of the fact that the appellant-Commissioner of Customs is responsible for happenings in the Customs area and for the discipline to be maintained over there. If he takes a decision necessary for that purpose, the Tribunal is not expected to interfere on the basis of its own notions of the difficulties likely to be faced fay the CHA or his employees. The decision is best to be left to the disciplinary authority save in exceptional cases where it is shockingly disproportionate or mala fide. That is not the case here, (emphasis added). 29. In the circumstances, we allow Customs Appeal No. 37 of 2006 filed by the appellant-Commissioner of Customs since the CESTAT was not justified in setting aside the revocation of the CH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
