TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs Broker/ Customs Housing Agent merely acts as a facilitator or agent for carrying out import operations. Thus, it appears that there is no reason to attribute any negligence to the appellant in the instant case. The CESTAT fell into error in attributing the statement of Rajender @ Raju to the appellant and on that basis, directing cancellation of the CHA license of the Appellant - there is no negligence which would be attributed to the appellant who acted on the basis of the instructions of the importer while filing the documents for clearance of the import - appeal allowed. - CUSAA 325/2018 & C.M. Nos. 50885-50887/2018 - - - Dated:- 23-8-2019 - MR. VIPIN SANGHI AND MR. SANJEEV NARULA JJ. Appellant Through: Mr. Shalinder Saini, Mr. Jitender Saini Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Advocates. Respondent Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel and Ms. Suhani Mathur, Advocate. SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral) 1. The present appeal has been filed under section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the order dated 08.05.2018 in Customs Appeal No. C/50754/2018-CU[DB] and order dated 27.07.2018 in Customs ROM Application No. C/ROM/50603/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts of Rajender Kumar @ Raju to the appellant and whether the finding with respect to the omission and negligence was of such magnitude as to call for revocation of the CHA licence in the circumstances of the case? 4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records. From the records, it is evident that the statement of one Rajender Prasad an employee of the appellant, was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. A perusal of the statement shows that he has not made any admission of any wrongdoing, or guilt in the matter of acting as the Customs House Agent of the importer Exim Cargo Services. 5. There is another person whose statement has been recorded, namely Rajender @ Raju under Section 108 of the Customs Act. In his statement, he has, inter alia, stated as follows: Question 2: Have you formed any firm or company and also have you any associate or partner in your business? Answer : I have not formed any firm or company but in my business of customs clearance, Shri Susheel Kumar Mishra is my regular partner. Shri Sanjay Kataria is also an associate in our business. We contact various collectively ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of M/s Pas got cleared from Customs. xxxxxxxxxx On being asked about my dealing with M/s Pax Technologies, I state that, I have already narrated in my earlier statement dated 15/01/16 about my dealing with M/s Pax. M/s Pax are the client of Shri Sanjay Kataria and he provided us the job of custom clearance of imports made by M/s Pax. Since, I have neither Fcard nor G-card, I alongwith my business partner Shri Sushil Kumar Mlshra engaged the services of Shri Randhir, who is a G-card holder. As per my knowledge Randhir is not working for any particular CHA, but he files bills of entry a different CHA's and pays them on mutually agreed upon basis for lading the name of CHA'S. In the case of bills of entry of MIS Pax I state that Shri Sanjay Kataria gave us the business for custom clearance in July 2015.Till date as per my knowledge seven consignments of M/S Pax have been handled by me in company of my partner Sushil Mishra I have already admitted in my earlier statement dated 15.01.2016, that the invoices representing. The correct value of the goods, imported by M/S. Pax, were forge by me by making scanned copy. There by declaring lesser value to custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order-in-original, as well as the separate statements of Rajendra Prasad and Rajendra @Raju shows, that Rajendra Prasad (G-card holder and employee of the Appellant) aged about 57 years, S/o Sh. Mahesha Nand, CHA Address RZ-E450, Gali No. 27-C, Sadh Nagar-II, Palam Cly, New Delhi, whose statement was recorded u/s 108 of Customs Act on 14.03.2018 is one person, whereas Rajender @Raju, s/o Sh. Chhabil Das, resident of 887/14, New Brahm Colony, Sonepath, whose statement was recorded on 15.01.2016, is a different third person with a separate distinct identity, who had no direct or indirect relationship with the Appellant firm, or with the said Rajendra Prasad. 7. There is nothing to show that the appellant, or any of its employees, could be attributed any conscious or deliberate mis-statement on behalf of the importer. In the instant case, there is no corroborative evidence or statement of anybody that the CHA had information, knowledge or has connived in the alleged forgery of invoices, mis-declaration and under-valuations. It has been observed in several decisions of this Court that an element of mens rea, or any direct or indirect involvement attributable to the CHA throug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
