Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Welcome Air Express P. Ltd. Versus C.C. (Admn. and Airport) , Kolkata

2015 (5) TMI 997 - CESTAT KOLKATA

Revocation of CHA licence - the prohibited items attempted to be exported outside India - It was found that the Shipping Bill No. 5513131, dated 7-11-2008 in the name of Himalayan Tours & Travels, Siliguri. Covering the said consignment was filed by the impugned, CHA. - he ld. Advocate has submitted that the charges labelled against them for the violation of Customs Act, were set aside by the Commissioner (Preventive) and therefore, on the similar facts and circumstances of the case, revocation .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Regulation under CHALR, 2004. - ld. Commissioner has rightly 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)]. - .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

izure 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 was found that the Shipping Bill No. 5513131, dated 7-11-2008 in the name of Himalayan Tours & Travels, Siliguri. Covering the said consignment was filed by the impugned, CHA. 3.2 From the investigation conducted, it appeared that the CHA filed the said .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(Airport & Admn.) vide Order dated 5-8-2011, revoked the CHA License and forfeited the security deposit made by the CHA. 3.3 In appeal preferred against the above order of the ld. Commissioner, the CHA claimed that the charges in the instant case against them were dropped relating offences under the Customs Act, 1962 vide Order dated 5-1-2012 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) while adjudicating the case under the Customs Act, 1962, in which they were also made the noticee. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing aggrieved, the present appeal is filed before this Forum. 4. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant, submitted that in the present case, the appellant was approached by one forwarding agent, M/s. Draft Cargo Ways (India) Ltd., working, inter alia, for M/s. Himalayan Tours and Travels as forwarding agent. The documents for clearance of 600 bags of iron sponge meant for export and a letter of authorization, were handed over to him by the said forwarding agent for clearance purposes. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ntraband 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), .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

re the appellant, i.e., M/s. Welcome Air Express Pvt. Ltd., has authorized him to make delivery cargo to and take delivery of cargo from the Kolkata Port Trust. It is his contention that it is clear from the impugned license that Shri Mithun Ghosh was an employee of the appellant firm. In view of this fact, it is submitted that the charges labelled against the CHA for violation of Regulation 13(b) does not arise. Regarding the violation of Regulation 19(8), the CHA shall exercise necessary super .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ow his license should be restored as it affects his livelihood adversely. 5. As per contra, the ld. AR for the Revenue submitted that in Para 24 of the Order, the ld. Commissioner has given a detailed finding in respect of violation of Regulation 13(b) of CHALR, 2004. He submits that as per Regulation 13(b), a CHA shall transact business in the Customs Station either personally or through an employee duly approved by the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Customs. It is his submission that Sh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

., to use his licence to clear the consignment on monetary consideration of ₹ 75/- per Shipping Bill. He further stated that the Jetty Sircar, namely, Mithun Ghosh, who actually did the clearance work at the Dock, was not an employee of the CHA, but he was the employee 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hall 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 required to transact the business personally or .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Hashim further admitted that M/s. Draft Cargo Ways (India) Ltd. used his license for clearing consignment as they did not have CHA License. In mutual understanding, they were using the license for the last 2-3 years. In respect of each Shipping Bill, an amount of ₹ 75/- was paid to him. Shri Hashim also admitted that Shri Mithun Ghosh is the jetty sircar of M/s. Welcome Air Express Pvt. Ltd. and he is an employee of M/s. Draft Cargo Ways (India) Ltd. In this regard, we find that the appel .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Director of the CHA Firm, stated that before clearing the subject consignment, they did not even bother to verify the genuineness of export or the export cargo. As such, the CHA was not aware about the exporter and therefore, did not advise the exporter suitably. According to Regulation 19(8), the CHA shall exercise the supervision and conduct of his employee. However, in the present case, as Shri Mithun Ghosh, was not the employee of the CHA Firm, but employee of another Firm, i.e., M/s. Draft .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 exerci .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

quantum of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee. The Superior Courts only in some cases may invoke the doctrine of proportionality. If the decision of an employer is found to be within the legal parameters, the jurisdiction would ordinarily not be invoked when the misconduct stands proved. (See Sangeroid Remedies Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. [1999 (1) SCC 259 = 1998 (103) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.)]. 17.1 The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constituti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version