AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 1909
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure drugs and pharmaceuticals without import licence issued under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and without Assistant Drug Controller's clearance. The Respondent, vide order dated 12. 7. 2013 prohibited the Petitioner from working as a Customs House Agent, in terms of Regulation 21 and hence, the Petitioner filed WP. No. 19670/2013, wherein this court by order dated 24. 9. 2013, directed the Respondent to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Respondent after considering the representation of the Petitioner, passed an Order in Original No. 22447/2013, dated 12. 11. 2013, continuing the prohibition order and stated that further decision in the matter will be taken after completion of the enquiry proceedings by the Cochin Customs and as against the same the Petitioner filed an appeal in C. 40192/2014-DB before the Tribunal. In the meantime, the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin had passed an order in original dated 7. 4. 2014 imposing penalty of R. 10,000/- on the Petitioner Company and thereafter, the Tribunal after considering the said order dated 7. 4. 2014, passed final order in No. 40781/2014 dated 15. 10. 2014, directing the Respondent to pass ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess any authorised customs identity card to handle customs documents; that he approached one Sh. Satheesan B. Menon, who was already doing Customs clearance at Chennai Airport in the capacity as Branch manager of CHA, M/s. The Trading Corporation pvt Limited; that he utilized his office and banner for clearance of some consignments; that during December 2012, one Sh. Sandeep contacted him and asked whether he could clear their imports of pharmaceuticals chemicals at Chennai Airport; that he enquired from Sh. Kannan, who was a 'G' Card holder of CHA, M/s. Steadfast International Pvt. Limited engaged in clearing of similar consignments, about feasibility of smooth clearance of the consignments; that Sh. Kannan assured him that he could handle the shipments very effectively without any ADC formalities; that Sh. Sandeep handed over the documents to him personally and Sh. Karthick, who is an 'H' card holder of M/s. The Trading Corporation Pvt. Limited collected the documents next day; that Sh. Karthick filed the bills of entry for home consumption and got the Bill assessed; that after assessment, he gave the bills of entry to Sh. Kannan, who effectively carried out Custo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... license and ADC's clearance; that she was aware that the three consignments cleared by them for the said importer were cleared without ADC's clearance; that as a CHA, she was responsible for clearance of the said consignments without ADC's clearance; that as a signing authority, she should have advised the importers that the consignments requires proper import license/ADCs clearance; that as all the business promotions were looked after by her husband Sh. Satheesan B. Menon, she did not concentrate much on verification of the documents. e. In above said facts and circumstances, it appeared that the customs broker allowed unauthorized persons to handle customs clearance work, who in turn used this opportunity to clear the consignments of pharmaceuticals and drugs without ADC's clearance in contravention of the provisions of the Drug and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the rules made thereunder and hence, there had been major lapses on the part of the Petitioner, inasmuch as:- 1. The Customs broker allowed Sh. Sourirajan and Sh. Satheesan B. Menon to file documents on their behalf and signed documents for them without verifying the details of the documents ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case was forwarded to the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin (license issuing authority) to initiate further action against the Customs Broker. The Commissioner of Customs, Cochin issued a show cause notice to the Customs Broker under Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013, vide F. No. S34/07/2013 I&B Cus. Dated 24. 10. 2013. In the meanwhile, aggrieved by the prohibition order dated 12. 07. 2013, the Customs Broker filed WP. No. 19670/2013, which was disposed of by order dated 24. 9. 2013, giving liberty to the Customs Broker to submit a representation before the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) to withdraw the said prohibition order and directed the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) to consider the representation. The Petitioner submitted a representation dated 10. 10. 2013. After going through the records of the case and the oral submissions made by the counsel for the Customs Broker during the personal hearing and their written submissions, since the customs broker had not submitted any evidence to show that they had acted in a bona fide manner as a customs broker, it was beyond doubt that the customs broker had failed to fulfil their obligations under the Regulations 12, 13(b), 13(d) and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Standing Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Petitioner/customs broker allowed unauthorized persons to handle customs clearance work, who in turn used this opportunity to clear the consignments of pharmaceuticals and drugs without ADC's clearance in contravention of the provisions of the Drug and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the rules made thereunder and hence, there had been major lapses on the part of the Petitioner and the investigation revealed that a prima facie case existed against the Petitioner and if the Petitioner was allowed to continue to operate, it would be detrimental to the interest of revenue and therefore, it was necessary to take action against the Petitioner to prevent them from further misuse of their licence and that in exercise of powers conferred under the provisions of Regulation 21, the Petitioner was prohibited from operating in the jurisdiction of Chennai Customs Zone and prayed for dismissal of this Writ Petition. 6. This court heard and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials placed on record. 7. The facts in a nutshell are that the Petitioner/Customs Broker, having license No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....details of violations to the Commissioner of Customs at the customs station from where the CHA licence was issued for such CHA, so that necessary action for suspension or revocation of CHA licence, could be initiated by him. This would avoid duplication and ensure uniformity in adjudication of a case against a CHA in suspension or revocation proceedings by the Customs field formations. However, the Commissioner of Customs, who had authorised a CHA to operate on 'C' form intimation at a customs station, may take action in deserving cases under regulation 21 of CHALR 2004 for prohibiting the working of such defaulting CHA in any section of the Customs House/Customs Station. " (ii). Regulation 12 of the CHALR, 2004 (now Regulation 10 of the CBLR, 2013) reads as under:- "Every licence granted or renewed under these regulations shall be deemed to have been granted or renewed in favour of the licensee and no licence shall be sold or other transferred." (iii) Regulation 13(b) of the CHALR, 2004 (now Regulation 11(b) of the CBLR, 2013), reads as under:- "A CHA shall transact business either personally or through an employee duly approved by the Deputy Commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ALR, 2004 for prohibiting the working of such defaulting CHA in any section of the Custom House/Custom Station. Therefore, the impugned order of the Respondent, continuing the prohibition of the licence of the Petitioner, is well within the ambit of law. 11. The Petitioner was given sufficient opportunity of furnishing a representation, written submissions and being heard. However, there is no evidence produced by the Petitioner to show that they fulfilled their obligations under the said provisions of Act, Rules and Regulations. The payment of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- by the Petitioner would go to show the acceptance of the order of the Respondent. 12. Therefore, it is finally concluded that in contravention of the above said provisions of the Act, Rules and Regulations, the Petitioner/custom brokers allowed third parties to use their licence and allowed third parties, who was not their employee, to do customs clearance work on their behalf and the Petitioner not only failed to advise their client to comply with the provisions of the Act, but also failed to bring the matter to the notice of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs/Deputy Commissioner of Customs and the Petitione....