TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 927X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter - Held that: - once the exporter gave the authority letter and thereafter the business is continuing, the same authority letter will be sufficient for carrying out the business in future also. Therefore, in each and every consignment, or each and every shipping bill separate authorization is not required. Once the authorization was given by the exporter it is sufficient compliance of regulation 13(a) of CHARL, 2004. when the shipping bill was filed by the CHA and it has been accepted by the exporter, this fact itself shows that appellant has been duly authorized by the exporter for carrying out clearance work of exports consignments. It is general practice in the CHA business that CHA work is brought by the various intermediary but ultimately it is CHA and importer or exporter which are under contract regarding the CHA clearance as well as payment term. Therefore, merely because some shipping line brought client to the appellant does not lead to any conclusion that there was no relation between appellant and exporter. Advise to client - Held that: - Even after detection of different nature of the goods, the description of the goods remained same. Therefore there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re sent to The Textile Committee . The Textile Committee forwarded the Test Report stating that all the samples of the Gents Garments-T Shirts were made of 100% cotton fabrics. The said good were classified under the Customs Tariff Item No. 6109.9090 pertaining to T-Shirts made of other textile material other than synthetic fibres, silk, wool or fine animal hair . This description appeared to be misdeclared as the subject goods were actually found to be made of 100% cotton and hence correctly classifiable under Customs Tariff item No. 6109.1000 whereas garments made of cotton fabric were classifiable under drawback tariff items No. 6109.01 which is eligible for drawback @ 6.7% of the FOB value as per the Table of drawback rates 2006-07, thus it appeared that M/s. Cosmos Enterprises had mis-declared their goods as garment made of manmade fibers in order to avail higher drawback, though the same were actually garments made of cotton. It was noticed from the said shipping bills of M/s. Cosmos Enterprises, that M/s. Cargo Concepts (Bombay) Pvt Ltd had handled the Customs clearance of the goods covered under the said shipping bills. Inquiry was cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idering the submission of the CHA and submissions made in the personal hearing, Ld. Commissioner has passed an order for revocation of the license. Extract of the Commissioners findings on all the regulation is under: (a) In respect of regulation 13(a) of CHALR 2004 it was held that authority letter submitted by the appellant is in respect of earlier 8 consignments cleared by the CB and not for the consignment covered in the present case. The authorization letter also not accepted on account that signature appearing on the said letter is not tallying with the signature which was figuring on the face of PAN card, IEC certificate and bank opening forms of Shri. Hamid Majid Shaikh. As regard the authority letter dated 21/10/2006 for impugned five shipping bills submitted by the appellant vide their letter 2/3/2015 was not accepted on the ground that the same was submitted on the belated stage and same was never presented before any authority thus Shri Dongre also admitted in his statement that they received client through middle man and not directly from the exporters therefore Ld. Commissioner held that appellant has violated the provision of regulation 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that as per the documents submitted by the exporter, it does not appear that there is any mis-declaration of the classification. It is undisputed that the nature of the goods attempted to be exported could found out only after testing of the goods by the Textile Committee, therefore even customs authority on eye estimation could not know which quality of garment it is. It is allegation that garments were made of 100% cotton and not other than 100% cotton. This being highly technical aspect, cannot be expected from CHA to know about characteristic of the product. It is general practice that CHA carries out his job mainly on the basis of documents produced before him and if he finds any apparent mistake in the documents, he suppose to point out otherwise it is not possible for CHA to check content of consignment. He submits that the whole case was decided only on the basis of Shri. T. Dongre s statements, however as regard the authorization letter from the exporter, Shri. T. Dongre was not aware of the same, as authorization letter was lying in the office of CHA. Apart from this charge, which is not been substantiated there is not a single incidence which sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6(332) ELT 237(Bom.)] (e) Dakor Clearing Shipping P ltd Vs. Commr. Of Cus. (General). Mumbai[2015(326) ELT 178(Tri. Mumbai)] (f) K.S. Sawant Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai[2012(284) ELT 363)Tri Mumbai] (g) Maruti Transports Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai[2004(177) ELT 1051(Tri. Chennai)] (h) Peak Agencies Vs. Commr. Of Cus., (General), Mumbai[2015(327) ELT 572(Tri. Mumbai)] 4. On the other hand, Shri. D.K. Sinha, Ld. Asstt.Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that appellant was involved in export of garment wherein exporter mis-declared the goods with intent to claim higher drawback. The appellant being CHA was duty bound to give proper advice, act speedily and efficiently which they failed to do which resulted the fraudulent claim of the drawback of the exporter therefore appellant is responsible for illegal act and the Ld. Commissioner rightly revoked the license. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on following judgments: (a) Commissioner of Customs Vs. M/s. K M Ganatra Co [2016-TIOL-13-SC-CUS] (b) P.B. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t possess the authority letter from their client, M/s. Cosmos Enterprises. In this regard, we find that appellant during the proceedings indeed submitted the authorization letter before the Commissioner, though said letter was in respect of earlier eight shipping bills. We are of the view that once the exporter gave the authority letter and thereafter the business is continuing, the same authority letter will be sufficient for carrying out the business in future also therefore we do not see that in each and every consignment or each and every shipping bill separate authorization is required. Once the authorization was given by the exporter it is sufficient compliance of regulation 13(a) of CHARL, 2004. As regard the allegation by the Ld. Commissioner that signature on the authority letter was not tallying. We find that the Ld. Commissioner has not made any efforts to investigate in the matter of signature therefore it was not conclusively proved that authority letter is not genuine. Ld. Commissioner in one hand contended that the signature on the letter is not tallying and on the other hand said that authority letter is in respect of earlier exports thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
