TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (9) TMI 394
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing No. P-2029 and intimations to the Customs authorities about the appointment of this employee to attend to the Customs and Docks were given by the agent. 2. In the course of their function, one M/s. Al Heena Enterprises, Mumbai sought their services for the clearance of export goods covered by 7 Shipping Bills all dated 16-9-2002 bearing numbers 4886196 to 4886202. On receipt of this job, the employee Mr. Hitesh A. Parmar was asked to attend to the work of Customs clearance. The goods were examined by the Proper Officers of Customs. Samples were drawn and after the necessary checks and finding everything to be in order, out of Customs Charge was given by the Proper Officer. The goods were thereafter handed over to the Airlines and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the CHA had failed to supervise the said employee and failed to ensure the proper conduct. The Commissioner, on receipt of this report of the Enquiry Officer, apparently conflicting the report, vide an Order dated 29-6-2005, held cancellation of the CHA licence and forfeiture of the security deposit with the Customs made by the CHA to be effected. The Commissioner thus agrees that Hitesh Parmar was an employee as CHA. However, relying on the Enquiry Officer's report, took a view that neither the employee nor the proprietor of the CHA firm exercised due diligence to ascertain the correctness of information as given by the exporter. Therefore the charges, as made out and confirmed by the Enquiry Officer, were held to call for cancellation o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is no material to conclude and doubt the employer-employee relationship besides the statement of Hitesh Parmar recorded by D.R.I. Officers. The status of Hitesh Parmar being other than mat of an employee cannot be doubted. (d) As regards failure of supervision, based on various materials, it is on record that the export firm M/s. Al Heena Enterprises had given their job assignment on a letter head containing the old and new address of the appellant was not intimated. However, this new address is recognised by CESTAT in the appeal decided revoking their suspension and from a copy of letter dated 29-11-2002 to the Secretary, the Bombay Customs House Agents Association and letter dated 10-1-2003 to the Deputy Commissioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to Vth Article of Charges for violation of Regulation 14(f) for not withholding information relating to clearance of cargo or baggage issued by the Commissioner of Customs from a client, who is entitled to such information. The goods had been examined, valuation has been done and all the documents have been verified by the department. Hitesh Parmar in his statement dated 12-10-2002 given all details which have not been discussed by the ld. Commissioner. (h) With regard to Vth Article of Charges for violation of Regulation 14(k), the appellants have submitted the Export Register at the time of cross-examination and also given details by its letter dated 10-5-2005. (i) With reference to VIIth....