TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant and one Shri Dasarathan Partner of M/s. Goodwill Shipping Company, for the purpose of availing DEEC benefit for the import. The goods were seized under a Mahazar for further action under the Customs Act and such action culminated in Order-in-Original No. 795/2003, dated 18-7-2003 of the Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Chennai, whereby, apart from confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty on the importer, a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was imposed on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The appellant is said to have filed separate appeal against that penalty and the same is said to be pending before this Tribunal. From investigations, it also appeared to the Department that the appellant had failed to comply with Regulation 14 of the CHALR, 1984. Therefore, a show-cause notice was issued to them proposing suspension/revocation of the CHA licence and forfeiture of security deposit under Regulation 21(l)(b) of the CHALR, 1984. In their reply to the show cause notice, addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Inquiry Officer), they denied the above charge. The Inquiry Officer reported that the appellant had failed to comply with the provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were only handled by one Shri Dasarathan, who himself had admitted that the Bank Guarantees in sealed covers given to him by the importers were handed over to the Customs by himself. There was no requirement under Regulation 14 that a CHA should verify the bona fides of the importer/exporter or the genuineness of the documents produced by the importer/exporter. Hence the CHA had no liability to scrutinise the documents. They acted only as a coordinating agency between the importer/exporter on one side and the Customs on the other. The subject Bill of Entry was filed as orally authorised by the importer. A written authoristion was not necessary. Shri Dasarathan was admittedly authorised by the importer to handle their documents and, therefore, it had to be presumed that the appellant had implied authority from the importer for filing the documents through Dasarthan. Therefore, there was no case of non-compliance with Regulation 14(a). Ld. Counsel conceded that there was breach of obligation under Regulation 14(b). However, with regard to Regulation 14(d), it was submitted that there was no basis for the charge levelled in terms of this provision inasmuch as the factum of submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ways v. Commissioner [2004 (163) E.L.T. 474 (Tri. - Del.]. Ld. JDR also relied on the decision in Trans Shipping Service v. Commissioner (supra), wherein revocation of a CHA licence was sustained on the ground that the CHA had violated Regulations 13 and 14 by not obtaining authorisation letter from his client. Ld. DR further submitted that, though the appellant was aware of the importer's fraudulent intention to obtain undue benefit under the DEEC scheme, they did not inform this to the Customs authorities. CHA was not merely an agent of the importer but also one who should act in aid of the Customs. The appellant's omission to keep the Customs authorities informed of the importer's fraud was misconduct under Regulation 14(d), which could warrant revocation of the CHA licence. In this connection, reliance was placed on the decision in Damani Bros. v Collector [2000 (125) E.L.T. 582 (Tri.)]. Ld. DR also sought to distinguish the cases cited by the Counsel. 5.In his rejoinder, ld. Counsel contended that it was not necessary for a CHA to get specific authorisation in writing from his client for dealing with import or export. It was enough to get the signature of the importer/export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uments. Apparently, it was the Customs authorities, who first came to know, through a communication received from the Bank, that the Bank guarantees were fake. The appellant came to know the forgery only subsequently. Hence the charge framed against the appellant with reference to Regulation 14 (d) cannot be sustained. As regards the Commissioner's finding that the documents prepared and filed on behalf of the appellant were not in accordance with the departmental orders relating to presentation of such documents, we observe that this finding is non-speaking inasmuch as it does not specify the departmental orders relating to presentation of import documents and also does not disclose as to how, and to what extent, the preparation and filing of the Bill of Entry and other documents were contrary to any departmental orders or instructions. Hence, we are unable to sustain the charge framed against the appellant with reference to Regulation 14(l). The only charge against the appellant, which has been conceded by them, is breach of Regulation 14(b) which cast an obligation on CHA to transact business in the Customs station either personally or through an employee duly approved by the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
