TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 903
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on today, the CHA has not been able to carry on their business within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner for a period of over 7 months. 3. Five charges were framed against the CHA and the Inquiry Officer found all of them to have been proved. The first charge, which was framed with reference to Regulation No. 12, was that the appellant sublet the licence to one Mr Rakesh Mehta of M/s D.J. International by permitting them to use it for a monetary consideration. This charge was framed on the basis of statements given by Shri Ashok Kumar Ram Jaiswar, Partner of M/s Jain International (appellant) and Mr. Rakesh Mehta under Section 108 of the Customs Act. Mr. Jaiswar, in his statement, stated inter alia that he had signed 7 Bills of Entry pertaining to the relevant import consignments of M/s Satyam Overseas, that he had not verified the authorization letter of M/s Satyam Overseas, that his employee Mr. Rakesh Mehta was running independent business of clearing import consignments in the name and style of M/s D.J. International by making use of his (appellant s) CHA licence, that he had not paid any salary to Mr. Rakesh Mehta and that he had received commission from Mr. Rakesh M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aiswar further admitted that the bill for the clearance work was raised in the name of M/s D.J. International and that his CHA firm received only a commission from Mr. Rakesh Mehta. It would, thus, appear that the CHA licence was allowed to be used by M/s D.J. International (Prop. Mehta) for a consideration which was received in cash from Mr. Rakesh Mehta. Such a case is covered by Regulation 12 of the CHALR, which prohibits sale or other kind of transfer of CHA Licence. To permit the licence to be used by another firm for a consideration amounts to transfer of the licence at least for the specific business for which it has been permitted to be used. Therefore, we hold that the appellant committed breach of Regulation 12 of the CHALR. 6. The learned consultant for the appellant has submitted that all the seven import details were duly recorded in their job register and, therefore, it is not open to the Commissioner to hold that the said imports were handled independently by Mr. Rakesh Mehta. We have not found it possible to accept this claim, at this stage, inasmuch as the job register referred to by the learned consultant was not produced before the Commissioner. The learn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court found that the CHA did not have authorization of their client but it was also found that the Customs officer did not check whether there was any such authorization. The contributory default was, thus, found in that case and, on that basis, the punishment of revocation of licence was held to be disproportionate to the omission of the CHA. The Hon ble High Court, however, maintained the Commissioner s order forfeiting the security deposit of Rs 25,000/-. The learned SDR refers to the question of law framed by the Hon ble High Court in the cited case and submits that what has been referred to by the learned consultant has to be treated only as obiter dicta. It is submitted that the partner of the CHA firm admitted, in his statement, that he had not verified the authorization letter from M/s Satyam Overseas and that Mr. Rakesh Mehta, in his statement, clearly admitted that he had not obtained any authorization from M/s Satyam Overseas to file the Bills of Entry. In view of this clear admission, according to the learned SDR, the appellant should be held to have violated Regulation 13 (a), which required the CHA to obtain written authorization from his client and to produce the sam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thout avoidable delay. In the present case, we have already found that the seven import consignments were handled not by the appellant but by Mr. Rakesh Mehta of M/s D.J. International. Hence the question of the appellant advising their client to comply with the provisions of the Act or ensuring due discharge of duties as CHA with utmost speed etc did not arise. This eventuality resulted from the appellant s own conduct inasmuch as the appellant allowed the CHA licence to be used by another entity (M/s D.J. International) for a consideration paid by the latter. 10. Yet another charge against the CHA arose under Regulation 19 (8) which required the CHA to exercise supervision over their employees in the transaction of business as agents. Under this provision, the CHA was to be held responsible for all acts and omissions of their employees in regard to their employment. In the present case, the appellant has made an endeavour to show that Mr. Rakesh Mehta had handled the seven import consignments as their own employee and G-card holder. The learned consultant has submitted that Mr. Rakesh Mehta was removed from employment only on 6.2. 09. It is submitted that whatever was don....