TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 997X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ghtly revoked the CHA License and forfeited the security deposit and therefore, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. - Decided against the appellant. - C/75205/2014-DB - Final Order No. A/75265/2015 - Dated:- 25-5-2015 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (J) and Dr. I.P. Lal, Member (T) Shri Ananda Sen and S.K. Poddar, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri S.P. Pal, Appraiser (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : I.P. Lal, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides and perused the records. 2. The instant appeal is filed against the order dated 19-12-2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Admn. Airport), Kolkata, wherein the CHA Licence No. W-13 (PAN No. AAACW4072H) of the applicant, namely, M/s. Welcome Air Express Pvt. Ltd., has been revoked and the full amount of security deposit of the said applicant, is forfeited. 3.1 Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 13-11-2008, the Officer of DRI, Kolkata, made seizure of 5415 kgs. of Red Sanders valued at ₹ 21,66,000/- (approx.); the prohibited items attempted to be exported outside India through N.S. Dock, Kolkata, stuffed in Container No. BLJU2050020 (20 ) said to contain iron sponge. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tour Travels through the said M/s. Draft Cargo Ways (India) Ltd. Accordingly, the said goods were stuffed in a container being No. BLJU2050020/20 . It is the submission that the said authorization also contained a self-declaration by the exporter that the goods meant for the export by them, did not contain any specified/contraband goods contrary to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the Shipping Bill was filed by the CHA on the basis of invoices and packing list, provided by the exporter, it was not in their knowledge that the impugned export was in violation of provisions of Customs Act, 1962 and therefore, there was no occasion to advice the client by the CHA. Accordingly, the ld. Advocate submits that the violation of Regulation 13(d), does not survive. As regards the violation of Regulation 13(b), which inter alia, states that the CHA shall transact business at the Customs Station, either personally or through his employee, it is submitted that the appellant had brought the said consignments and handed over the same to Shri Mithun Ghosh, Jetty Sircar, for taking the same inside the Dock for completing the onwards shipping formalities. The ld. Advocate invited atte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of freight forwarder, M/s. Draft Cargo Ways (India) Ltd.. As regards violation of Regulations 13(d) and 19(8) of CHALR, 2004, the ld. AR for the Revenue referred to the findings of the ld. Commissioner mentioned in Paras 25 amd 26 of the impugned order. 6.1 We find that various obligations have been put on the CHA under CHALR, 2004. Regulation 13(b) provides that A Customs House Agents shall transact business in the Customs Station either personally or through an employee duly approved by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs . Regulation 13(d) provides that A Customs House Agents shall advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act and in case of non-compliance, shall bring the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs . Regulation 19(8) provides that The Customs House Agent shall exercise such supervision as may be necessary to ensure proper conduct of any such employees in the transaction of business as agents and be held responsible for all acts or omissions of his employees in regard to their employment . It is evident from the above that the CHA is requi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f M/s. Draft Cargo Ways (India) Ltd. for obtaining Jetty Sircar License and the said employees of M/s. Draft Cargo Ways (India) Ltd. used to process the documents on behalf of the CHA. Accordingly, the CHA, M/s. Welcome Air Express Pvt. Ltd., failed to keep control and supervision on those employees of M/s. Draft Cargo Ways (India) Ltd., who used to process documents on behalf of CHA. 6.3 In the above background, we find that in the present case, we find that the appellant, CHA, did not transact the business either personally or through his employee, advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act and failed to exercise supervision and conduct of the person employed by him in the impugned clearance job, which according to us, are serious enough for revoking CHA License. 6.4 As regards the doctrine of proportionality, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman M.D. V.S.P. Ors. v. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu, 2008 (2) G.L.H. 146, observed that - 17. Once it is found that all the procedural requirements have been complied with, the Court would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee. The Superior ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
