AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 143
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant was the holder of a license issued under the Regulations 2004. It would appear that apart from its office in Cochin, the appellant had 12 other branches. Among the various persons employed by the appellant to transact its business in the Cochin Custom House, one of them was Sri.Vipin Kumar who was issued an identity card and 'G' card bearing Sl.No.48 which was valid upto 22.8.2014. 4. It appears that Bill of Entry No.7690810 dated 17.8.2012 on behalf of M/S Madeena Dates, Trivandrum was filed in the name of appellant for clearance of goods which required Clearance Certificate from Plant Quarantine Agencies and Port Health Officers. The required documents were produced and the goods were cleared. On investigation, it was revealed that Sri.Vipin Kumar, the 'G' card holder of the appellant had submitted the forged certificate of the Port Health Officer to clear the goods. It was also revealed that the signature of the proprietor of the appellant was forged in the Bill of Entry by Sri.Vipin Kumar. Enquiry also revealed that Sri.Vipin Kumar had subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d various documents submitted to Customs. Since, it appeared that an employee of M/S A.B.Agencies has committed irregularities in the clearance of goods imported vide Bill of Entry No.7690810 dated 17.8.2012 by forging the endorsement of Port Health Officer and signature of Shri.Anil Kumar in the said Bill of Entry and the said employee had also submitted various other forged documents, the license issued to M/S A B Agencies was suspended with immediate effect under Regulation 20(2) of the CHALR, 2004 vide order F No.S9/8/1987 I & B dated 18.10.2012. Thereafter a notice was issued on 19.11.2012 to M/S A B Agencies seeking to show cause as to why license issued to them should not be revoked and the security deposited not forfeited under Regulation 20 (1) of CHALR, 2004. 17. I find that after considering the submissions of M/S A B Agencies made in reply to the Show Cause Notice and at the time of personal hearing, the Inquiry Officer had arrived at the conclusion that M/S A B Agencies had failed to exercise proper supervision and to ensure proper conduct of its employee in the transaction of business as CHA and had thereby violated Regulation 19(8) of CHALR, 2004. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o obtain 'H' card and 'G' card for his associates Shri.L.Kannan and Anil Kumar Alex respectively. As held by the Inquiry Officer, this clearly shows that Shri.Anil Kumar, Proprietor had completely failed to exercise the supervisory responsibility cast upon him under the CHALR, 2004, Regulation 19(8) states that "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 agents and be held responsible for all acts or omissions of his employees in regard to their employment." Thus, the Regulation is very clear about the responsibility of the CHA on the acts and omissions of his employees. Further, Shri.Anil Kumar had, by allowing his employee to handle import documents without verification of the genuineness of the importers, also failed to discharge the obligation under Regulation 13(o) of the CHALR, 2004. 21. Shri.Anil Kumar cannot absolve him from the above responsibility and his failure by stating that irregularities were committed Sri.Vipin Kumar, without his knowledge and in a clandestine manner outside their office. In fact the negligence from his part....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lated sub regulation (8) of Regulation 19 of the CHALR, 2004. In view of the above violation, the Custom House Agents License No.236 (ABGPA1333F) issued to them is liable for revocation and the security deposit liable to be forfeited under Regulation 20 (1) CHALR, 2004, which provides that "the Commissioner of Customs may, subject to the provisions of regulation 22, revoke the licence of a Customs House Agent and order for forfeiture of part or whole of security, or only order forfeiture of part or whole of security, on any of the following grounds, namely:- (a) failure of the Customs House Agent to comply with any of the conditions of the bond executed by him under regulation 10; (b) failure of the Customs House Agent to Comply with any of the provisions of these regulations, within the jurisdiction of the said Commissioner of Customs or anywhere else; (c) any misconduct on his part, whether within the jurisdiction of the said Commissioner of Customs or any where else which in the opinion of the Commissioner renders him unfit to transact any business in the Customs Station. Accordingly I pass the following order: ORDER (i) I order re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e for all acts or omissions of his employees in regard to their employment. The consequence of breach of Clause 19(8) is provided in Regulation 20, which provides that the Commissioner may revoke the licence of a Customs House Agent and order forfeiture of part or whole of the security, or only order forfeiture of part or whole of security. 11. In so far as this case is concerned, admittedly, Sri.Vipin Kumar was an employee of the appellant and he was also issued 'G' card, enabling him to transact the business of the appellant as a Customs House Agent. It was while working in that capacity that he has forged the signature of the proprietor of the appellant on the Bill of Entry, in the applications for issue of 'H' card and 'G' card and various other documents submitted to the Customs Department. He was enabled to do all the forgeries and derive the benefit thereof only because of his employment under the appellant and obviously on account of the failure of the appellant in effectively supervising the activities of his employees to ensure that they conduct themselves properly in the transaction of his business as a Customs House Agent. Therefore, the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibunal is too harsh and disproportionate. This view that we take, is supported by the principles laid down in the judgment in Ashiana Cargo Services v. Commissioner of Customs (I & G) 2014 (302) ELT 161 (Del) where the Delhi High Court has held thus: "Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Customs has stressed that the infraction in this case is not a routine matter, but rather, illegal smuggling of narcotics by the G card users. However, given the factual finding that the CHA was not aware of the misuse of the G cards (and thus, also unaware of the contents being smuggled), no additional blame can be heaped upon the CHA on that count alone. Rather, the only proved infraction on record is of the issuance of G cards to non-employees, as opposed to the active facilitation of any infraction, or any other violation of the CHA Regulations, whether gross or otherwise. Neither have any such allegations been raised as to the past conduct of the appellant, from the time the license was granted in January, 1996. Equally, it is important to note that the appellant has - as of today - been unable to work the license for 8 years, and thus been penalized in this manner. This is not to ....