2014 (8) TMI 773

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....011held by the appellant for providing Custom House Agents Services at Kandla and Mundra. A security of Rs. 75,000/- furnished by the appellant in terms of Regulation 20 (1) of the CHA Regulations, 2004 was also forfeited under the OIO dated 17.09.2013. 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant is a partnership firm of Smt. Kalpanaben P. Shah and her son Shri Lajim P. Shah. A case was booked by DRI, Ahmedabad for illegal import of 500 bags (50 Kg. each) of 'Poppy Seeds', which was restricted items. A Bill of Entry No. 7083318 dated 12.06.2012 was filed by one M/s. Oswal through the appellant CHA declaring the goods as 'Carom Seeds' instead of 'Poppy Seeds'. 3. During investigation statements of Shri Lajim P. Shah, partner of the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ormed him that the business of M/s. Oswal was brought to them by one Shri Dinesh Solanki and two consignments of Ajwain (Carom Seeds) under containers No. TCKU 9425286 and CLHU 8371000 were recently got cleared by their firm; that he or his mother were not at all aware of the clearances handled by their firm in respect of import made by M/s. Oswal Agro Foods and the same has been done by Shri Piyush Gohel of their Gandhidhams office without the knowledge of him or his mother; that no authorisation was taken from the importer M/s. Oswal and neither KYC norms were fulfilled. After detailed investigation a show cause notice dated 19.10.2012 was issued to the appellant. 4. Adjudicating authority vide OIO No. 1/Custom House Agents/2012-13 da....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....p; (b) Manilal Patell Clearing Forwarding P. Limited vs. CC (Gen.), Mumbai [2013 (294) ELT 472 (Tri. Mum.)]        (c) Vipul Pranlal Doshi vs. CC (General) Mumbai - [2012 (279) ELT 427 (Tri. Mumbai.)]         (d) Ajay Clearing Enterprises vs. CC (General), mumbai - [2008 (228) ELT 297 (Tri. Mumbai)] 6. Shri K. Sivakumar (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that there is a clear cut negligence on the part of the appellant by not supervising the work of their CHA employees which is mandatory as per CHA Regulations. That appellant is vicariously responsible for the acts/ omissions committed by appellant's employees. Learned AR thus strongly defended the order p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at the appellant has already gone without CHA business for nearly two years. This fact is a relevant consideration in the context of deciding whether the appellant should be permanently debarred from working as a CHA. It was on a similar consideration that a revoked licence was revived in the case of Nanda International (supra). The operative part of the order (in the cited case) relied on by learned counsel is extracted below : ..........we are of the considered view that, in sound exercise of discretion, this Tribunal can take an appropriate view in a case involving revocation of CHA licence, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, admittedly, the licence was suspended as early as in 1998....