TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c provisions of law; since the charge basically was that of misdeclaration of the export cargo, in terms of value and no allegations of aiding or abetting were made against the Appellants, the charge of misconduct on the part of the employees cannot sustain; Consequently the charge that there was a failure on the part of the Appellants to ensure proper conduct of the employees cannot be upheld. Accordingly, the Inquiry Officer held that this charge too was not proved. - APPEAL NO: C/516/2012 - A/85026/2019 - Dated:- 8-1-2019 - Shri Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial) And Shri Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) Appellant: Mrs. Pooja Reddy, Advocate Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Assistant Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per: Ajay Sharma The instant Appeal has been filed from the Order-in-Original No. 14/2012/CAC/CC (G)/SLM dated 21/03/2012 passed by Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai The Appellants harein i.e. M/s. East West Freight Carriers Ltd are transacting business in the Custom House as Custom House Agents Having been duly licensed by the Commissioner of Customs under the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 (Now Custom House Agents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, the consignment were held up. 6. The Appellants further submit that, the said consignment were taken up for examination on 11.01.2008 and it was prima facie found that the goods were overvalued with an intention to avail higher duty drawback, than what the exporters were eligible to. Investigations were carried out and the statement of the concerned exporters were recorded. Statement of the employees of the Appellants also were recorded wherein they had categorically given the details as to how and in what manner the consignments came to be received by them and the way the export of the said consignments was attended to by the employees of the Appellants. The investigations also revealed that similar consignments have been exported in the past in the same manner and under claim for duty drawback by the said exporter and that drawback has been sanctioned to the said exporter. 7. The Appellants submit that during the investigation market inquiry was conducted and it was allegedly ascertained that the goods in question have been overvalued with the intention of claiming excess amount of drawback and that total FOB value of the export goods was ₹ 14,53,737/- and the amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds under export under the said 3 shipping bills were held liable to confiscation and penalty also has been imposed on the exporter. The said order does not contain any adverse remarks about to the Appellants or the employees. A copy of the said order is enclosed herewith at Exhibit- B . 10. The Appellants submit that much after the said show cause notice was issued and much after said order was passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export), a notice was issued to the Appellants under F. No. S/8-55/2008 Admn dated 29.04.2004 under Regulation 22 of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulation, 2004, wherein charges were framed against the Appellants and inquiry was proposed to be conducted. The statement of the employees of the Appellants along with copy of the show cause notice were listed in the list of documents contained in Annexure-III by which the charges framed against the Appellants were proposed to be sustained. The notice did not contain any proposal to examine any witnesses in support of the charges or to sustain the charges framed against the Appellants in the said notice. A copy of the said notice along with the Annexure are enclosed herewith at Exhibit- C . 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d herein at Exhibit- F . 15. The Appellants submit that, the Learned Inquiry Officer (IO) after taking into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the Department as well as the Appellants and also the evidence that had been brought on record during the course of the inquiry proceedings, submitted his report wherein it has been held by the Learned Inquiry Officer that the Articles of Charges framed against the Appellants are not approved. A copy of the said inquiry report is enclosed herewith at Exhibit- G . 16. The Appellants submits that while holding that the charges framed against the Appellants are not proved the Learned Inquiry Officer observed as under: Article of Charge-I (a) The charge under Article Charge-I related to the alleged contravention of Regulation 13(n) of the CHALR, 2004. It was alleged therein that the Appellants had failed to discharge their duties as the CHA, with utmost speed, efficiency and without avoidable delay. (b) The inquiry officer found that though the above said charge was made against the Appellants, no evidence had come on record to say that there was any delay or inefficiency on the part of the Appellants as the CHA. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
