AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 688
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontroller of India permitting clearance for export. On scrutiny of the documents of export by the customs authorities, it was observed that there was a difference in the signature of Officer of the Asst. Drugs Controller's office. Air Cargo Complex, Sahar as endorsed in the export invoices mentioned above. Therefore, a reference was made to the Asst. Drugs Controller vide letter dated 14-3-2008 by the customs authorities. The Asst. Drugs Controller vide letter dated 15-3-2008 stated that the office of Asst. Drugs Controller had raised certain queries on the invoices produced to them and certain clarification on the same was being awaited and the document which has been submitted to the customs appear to bear forged signatures. The initials/signatures of Shri Damie, an Officer of the Asst. Drugs Controller, were forged and it was put up to the customs department for export of the said item. Therefore, the goods were detained for further investigation. Shri Ketan Adhia, partner of the CHA firm was summoned and statements were recorded on 4-4-2008 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, wherein he admitted that when certain objection was raised by the Asst. Drugs Controller regard....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to discharge his duty faithfully thereby violating the provisions of Regulation 13(n) of CHALR, 2004. The enquiries were concluded and the CHA was found guilty of the offences alleged by the Enquiry Officer and the charges were held to be proved. Thereafter, the matter was considered by the Commissioner of Customs who agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and, accordingly the CHA license of the appellant was revoked along with forfeiture of the security deposit. Hence the appellant is before us. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in the instant case the inquiry proceedings are not valid. The CHA license has been revoked on the strength of statement of Shri Ketan Adhia, partner of the CHA firm. However, no statement of Shri Damle, officer of the Asst. Drugs Controller's office was recorded nor was he examined during the enquiry proceedings. Thus in the absence of a statement from Shri Damle, the charge of forgery of Shri Damle's signature cannot be said to be proved. The learned Counsel further submits that even if it is assumed that there has been forgery on the part of the partner of the CHA firm, since it is an export consignment, no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hri Damle appearing on the export documents appeared to bear forged signature and they had given no clearance/NOC to the exporter with respect to the export of the impugned goods, namely, Zoledronate. Thus the statement of Shri Ketan Adhia coupled with the reply of the Asst. Drugs Controller's office clearly establishes the fact that the signature of Shri Damle appearing in the export invoices is fake and hence forged. There has not been any retraction of his statements by Shri Ketan Adhia. It is a well settled legal principle that 'admitted facts need not be proved'. [Asst. Collector of Customs v. Govindasamy Raghupathy - 1998 (98) E.L.T. 50 (Mad.)]. 5.2 We further observe that Shri Damle was cited as a defence witness by the appellant during the inquiry proceedings conducted by the Customs. However, the appellant himself water withdrew Shri Damle as a defence witness. If the appellant wanted to prove that they had not forged Shri Damle's signature, they could have very well produced Shri Damle as a defence witness and examined him to show that his signature was not forged. The very conduct of withdrawing Shri Damle as defence witness itself goes against the appellant. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this argument of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted as it is without any merit. 5.5 As regards the next issue that the punishment meted out in the instant case is quite harsh, we do not find any merit in this argument. The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Commissioner of Customs & CCE Hyderabad-II v. H.B. Cargo Services - 2011 (268) E.L.T. 448 (A.P.) dealt with the situation where the CHA therein had sold 10 blank shipping bills for a consideration of Rs. 150/- per shipping bill. An argument was made before the Hon'ble High Court that considering the amount involved in the transaction the punishment meted out is quite harsh and the Hon'ble High Court held as follows :- "16. While great emphasis is placed by Sri C. Kodandaram, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the previous unblemished record of the CHA, it must be borne in mind that a single act of corruption is sufficient to award the maximum penalty which, under the CHALR, is of revocation of the license. (State of Punjab v. Ex Constable Ram Singh - (1992) 4 SCC 54). That the respondent has been found guilty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, which proceedin....