2006 (12) TMI 406

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for transacting the business in Mumbai and other Custom Houses under Regulation 10 of the CHA Licence Regulation, 1984. Certain investigations were carried out regarding misuse of CEEC and DEPB by some Moradabad based units, that the modus operandi of these firms was to submit fictitious or forged shipping bills with a view to obtain inadmissible DEPB benefit or for fulfilling export obligation against advance licenses under DEEC Scheme and to obtain waiver of Bank Guarantee conditions against DEEC licenses as per the Exim policy, that no physical export of goods took place and only the export documents were fabricated/forged to show that the goods were exported, that though the intention of the racketeers was to take benefit of duty free ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....retracted his statement and therefore cannot be considered as admissible evidence. It was submitted that Shri Vipul Shah was acting only as a commission agent for which he was being paid commission and the entire work was being done by the appellant himself and getting business through commission agent does not amount to sub-letting or transfer of business and the same is not prohibited under the CHA Licence Regulations. The appellant has obtained the IEC certificate as well as Pan Card of the exporter and has therefore satisfied himself about the credentials of his clients and has not allowed Shri Vipul Shah to transact the business in the Custom House. The shipping bills in question bear the stamp of CHA only. He has obtained the authoriz....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....06 (199) E.L.T. 700 (Tri.-Chennai), Nanda International v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - 2004 (176) E.L.T. 524 (Tri.-Chennai) and similar other decisions in support of lenient view in the matter. 5. Learned D.R. however submits that in this case the appellants has sub-letted his CHA licence to unauthorized purpose for a monetary consideration who has no custom house pass and could not transact the CHA business. The CHA did not have any authorization from the customer authorizing him to file shipping bill and has not satisfied himself about the genuineness of his client which has resulted in loss of revenue to the ex-chequer. He invited attention to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Noble Agency v. Commissioner of Customs, ....