TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (3) TMI 424
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....1 The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai investigated a case relating to undervaluation and mis-declaration of a consignment of shoes illegally imported by M/s. Dilip Impex. It was cleared through JNPT. M/s. C.P. Mota & Co, CHA No. 11/682 was handling the customs clearance of the said consignment of shoes and it was found that they had aided and abetted the act of smuggling of the goods. Accordingly, an Inquiry was conducted against the CHA under the provisions of CHALR, 2004 and following charges were made:- 2.2 Under Regulation 12 of the CHALR, 2004 CHA licence cannot be sold or otherwise transferred. In the case under consideration, M/s. C.P.Mota & Co. allowed one Shri Dyaneshwar Ganpat Bhoir to use the licence for a monetary ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the provisions of Regulation 13(n) of the CHALR, 2004. An enquiry was conducted and the Inquiry Officer held all the above charges to be proved and thereafter the matter reached the Commissioner, who accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer, revoked the licence under Regulation 22(7) of the CHALR, 2004. Hence the appellant is before us. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in this case the Inquiry Officer did not follow the proper procedure for conducting the enquiry. They did not produce any prosecution witnesses and did not allow cross examination of the witnesses for establishing the charges against them. Therefore the CHA was deprived of an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses based on which the charges h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence, and the importer, from which it is clearly established that Shri Chandrakant Popatlal Mota sub-let his licence to Shri Dyaneshwar Ganpat Bhoir and Shri Dyaneshwar Ganpat Bhoir was not an employee of CHA firm at all. Further it was on record that Shri Dyaneshwar Ganpat Bhoir who bought in the licence was paying commission to the CHA for using his licence and the CHA did not know the importer at all. Therefore, the charges against the CHA are conclusively established. 4.1 The learned A.R relies on the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Jasjeet Singh Marwaha vs Union of India 2009 (239) ELT 407 (Del.) wherein it was held that the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 can be used as evide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shri Sunil Umesh Kapoor and Shri Thakur Prasad Shukla and Shri Thakur Prasad Shukla promised him ₹ 3,500/- per consignment and on the basis of documents given by Shri Thakur Prasad Shukla he had filed the documents with the Customs. The averments of Shri Dyaneshwar Ganpat Bhoir was also confirmed by the statement of Shri Thakur Prasad Shukla recorded on 28.10.2008 by the DRI. Further, Shri Chandrakant Popatlal Mota, in his statement recorded under Section 108 on 19.09.2008, had clearly admitted that Shri Dyaneshwar Ganpat Bhoir had been giving him consignment-wise commission and he had obtained a Customs pass showing Shri Dyaneshwar Ganpat Bhoir as an employee of M/s. C.P.Mota & Co. and Shri Dyaneshwar Ganpat Bhoir had been independe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hwar Bhoir was shown as an employee of M/s. C.P. Mota & Co. only during the period from March, 2008 to December, 2008. During the enquiry proceedings, the CHA had brought in two defence witnesses, one Shri Jagdish Bhanushali and the another one Ms. Bharati Umakant Gavda. Shri Jagdish Bhanushali deposed before the Inquiry Officer that he knew Shri Dyaneshwar Bhoir for around three years as an employee of M/s. C.P. Mota & Co. whereas from the records, it seen that Shri Jagdish Bhanushali was with C.P. Mota & Co. only for the period from March 2008 to December 08, less than one year, which shows that the said witnesss statement is completely unreliable. Similarly, the other defence witness Ms. Bharati Umakant Gavda stated that Shri Dyaneshwar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts to comply with the provision of the Act does not arise. Further it is an admitted position that Shri Chandrakant Popatlal Mota, proprietor of the CHA had been blindly signing the customs documents brought in by Shri Dyaneshwar Bhoir. Accordingly, violation of Regulation 13 (d) and (n) of CHALR, 2004 are also proved. Similarly the allegation that CHA did not know the importer at all in violation of Regulation 13 (a) is also proved. Therefore, the conclusion of the adjudicating authority that the CHA has violated the provisions of CHALR, 2004 by sub-letting his licence and also undertaking various transactions in violation of the CHALR provisions stands clearly established and his findings in this regard cannot be faulted. 5.3 The Hon'ble....