2015 (11) TMI 1088

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tter they are considered together for disposal. 2. Brief facts common to both the appeals are that M/s.Akshey Gupta are holders of CHA licence issued by the Commissioner of Customs (I&G), New Customs House, New Delhi. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant for violation of various provisions of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004/Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013. After due process, the two impugned orders have been issued by the Commissioner ordering revocation of appellants licence and forfeiture of whole amount of bank guarantee furnished by the appellant. Appeal No.C/52257/2105: 3. The case against the appellant is that as a CHA they have failed in discharging their obligations as per Regulatio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rder dated 11.03.2015 directed the department to complete the proceedings under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004 within 45 days. A show cause notice dated 19.03.2014 was earlier issued to the appellant for revocation of licence. The enquiry officer submitted his report. After personal hearing the impugned order dated 23.04.2015 was issued by the ld. Commissioner. 6. The ld. Counsel for the appellant, Shri Puneet Kumar Rai, Advocate and Shri Akshey Gupta, Proprietor of appellant firm mainly argued on one point, namely, that the appellant followed normal business practice in accepting the work from exporters. The impractical duties in terms of CHALR, 2004, as opposed to general business practice cannot held against them. The KYC norms have bee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndling their work with Customs. The case relates to a consignment of red-senders attempted for illicit export misdeclaring as rice. The shipping bill was filed in the name of M/s. Shri Radhey Corporation, New Delhi. On investigation, it was found that no such firm existed in the given address. The proprietor was not traceable and his address was fictitious. Inquiry revealed that the appellant received the invoice on mail and a person named Shri Sumit, ex-employee of the appellant gave letter of authority. Though the appellant is said to have received KYC documents like driving licence, MTNL telephone bill, Pan card of Shri Sarvesh Kumar, the purported owner of the exporting firm, no cross verification was done by the appellant before filing....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "31. However, from the facts it is clear that the CHA had only acted at the first stage whereby they based on the documents received filed the shipping bill and all the later actions were taken by the other conspirators and the CHA was at no stage involved with the presentation or clearance of goods. In fact, the investigations also show that M/s.Akshey Gupta was given the KYC papers but the same were fraudulently acquired by Shri Sumit.Shri Sumit had supplied forged invoice and a forged authorization letter to the CHA. I tend to agree with the CHAs submissions to the extent that since they were not involved in the process of presenting and clearing of the goods, the Check List alone should not make them the CHA in the case. The Check....