9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 1040X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DR, for the Respondent. ORDER The challenge in the present appeal is to imposition of penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the appellant, who is a CHA in terms of provisions of Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. As per facts on record, one consignment for export on behalf of M/s. Shalini Impex was booked under the shipping bills filed under the name of present appellant M/s. Cargo Care. On exam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by one Shri S. Malik of M/s. Cargo Care. Shri S. Malik, proprietor of M/s. Cargo Care contacted him for its consignment. As a consequence of his statement, statement of Shri S. Malik of Cargo Care was recorded wherein he denied having booked the said export consignment and further denied having put his signatures on shipping bills. However, he revealed that he has 14 "G" and "H" Card holders from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty upon the CHA by observing that CHA who filed the shipping bills before the Customs authorities has the responsibility to see that no customs violation takes place. He further observed that as CHA did not supervise over his "G" and "H" Card holders, his conduct was totally unbecoming of a CHA. Commissioner further relied upon the statement of Shri Rakesh Kumar, M/s. Sky Liner Transhipment (P.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be made basis for penalizing the appellant. Further, the adjudicating authority is also referring to the fact that present CHA failed to control the "G" and "H" Card holders; without arriving at a finding that the shipping bills are filed with the signatures of "G" and "H" Card holders. There is no allegation much less and evident to that effect on the record. The entire case of the Revenue is b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
