2013 (8) TMI 892

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o the appellant, M/s N.H. Desai & Co. has been revoked by the adjudicating authority under Regulation 22(7) of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations (CHALR), 2004 and security deposit made by the appellant has been forfeited. 2.1 The charges against the appellant is that he allowed the CHA licence to be used by Shri Sitaram Jadhav for customs clearance of grossly over-valued export goods without verifying or confirming the correct value of the goods and also without verifying and confirming the existence of the export firms and thereby violating the provisions of Regulation 12 of CHALR, 2004. It is also alleged that the appellant did not obtain authorization from the exporter thereby violating the Regulation 13(a) of the CHALR, 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant's employee Shri Dhaval Desai for undertaking certain export transactions. The transactions were attended to by the appellant firm. They obtained export invoices/documents from the exporter for filing shipping bills and also obtained authorization for undertaking the activity which was all that was required as per CHALR. Merely because they took assistance from the exporter or his employee while examining the goods, it cannot be held that the appellant has sub-let the licence. From the records of the case, it is evident that it was the appellant's employee, who obtained information from the exporter and filed shipping bills electronically. All the data which was fee to the system relating to exports were obtained from the exporter and th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by only forfeiting the security deposit. Such discriminatory treatments in similar matters cannot be done and is bad in law. Accordingly, it is prayed that revocation of the CHA licence in the instant case be set aside. 3.2 The other charges against the appellant are of minor nature and does not attract revocation of licence and forfeiture of security deposit as ordered in the case of Frontier Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. would suffice. 4. The learned Dy. Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue while reiterating the findings of the adjudicating authority conceded that for similar offences, different treatments should not have been meted out and no reasons are forthcoming in the impugned order for such different treatments. 5. We....