TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 1172
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly, the facts of the case are that the CHA had replaced the invoice and packing list accompanying the Bill of Entry filed for clearance of 10 containers of 'vitrified tiles' imported by one M/s. G.M. Exports without the permission of the appropriate customs authority. The employees of the CHA had forged the said documents to show the dimensions of the tiles imported as 500x500x10mm found on examination by the customs officers at the port.The documents initially filed had shown dimensions as 400x400x10mm. After due process of law, the Commissioner found that the CHA was guilty of non-compliance with Regulation 20(7) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 (CHALR henceforth); had failed to ensure that the importer complied wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r consequences of violation of CHALR. 2. In the appeal filed before the Tribunal, the CHA has raised the following grounds : The enquiry officer had not conducted an enquiry as contemplated under Regulation 23 of CHALR which was also in violation of the specific direction of the Commissioner for conducting further enquiry in terms of sub-regulations (2), (3), (4) and (5) of the said Regulation 23. The impugned order was based solely on statements recorded from various persons under Section 108 of the Act, in the context of misdeclaration of imported goods. Such statements are not relevant for enquiry under Regulation 23 as held by the Tribunal in Thakkar Shipping Agency v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [1994 (69) E.L.T. 90 (Tribun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nquiry officer and that it was not mandatory that evidence is gathered from concerned persons. The Commissioner was lenient in that licence of the CHA was not revoked and he had imposed a fair penalty of forfeiting deposit of Rs. 10,000/- from the CHA. He submits that the Commissioner though expressed disagreement with the decision of the Tribunal, had actually distinguished the said decision on facts from the case on hand. He submits that the penalty imposed is liable to be sustained. 5. We have carefully examined the case records and studied the rival submissions. The subject proceedings are an offshoot of offences committed by an importer M/s. G.M. Exports in connection with import of vitrified tiles. The employees of the CHA had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng. When such charge was dropped, it could not be held that the CHA was guilty of mis-conduct unbecoming of a CHA. 7. Dealing with a case of revocation of CHA licence under Regulation 19(8), this Tribunal held in the case of Ark Logistics (supra) that provisions of the said Regulation could not be pressed into service against the CHA when the employees of the appellant had committed acts of omissions and commissions without the knowledge of the CHA. We find that this regulation reads as under :- "The Customs House Agent shall exercise such supervision as may be necessary to ensure the proper conduct of any such employees in the transaction of business as agent and be held responsible for all acts or omissions of his employees in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nowledge of such acts of commissions and omissions on the part of their employee, provisions of Regulation 19(8) cannot be pressed into service against the appellant and provisions of Regulation 20 cannot be invoked to revoke the licence. We find strong force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Falcon Air cargo & Travel (supra) will squarely cover the issue in their favour, as it was held in that case that charges of improper employee supervision, subletting license and negligence concerning value resulting in excess drawback are not grave enough to invite punishment by revocation of license. 11. We find that decision of the Tribunal in the case of Worldwide Cargo Movers ....