AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1387
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing Regulations, (CHALR) 2004 and also security amount of Rs. one lakh was forfeited under Regulation 20(1) of CHALR, 2004. 2. The appellant CHA had filed two Shipping Bills No. 1287830 and No. 12288039 both dated 17.6.2003 in the name of M/s HM. Impex for readymade garments involving drawback claim of about Rs. 34 lakhs. However, on examination of the goods declared in the shipping bills, the goods were found to be rags like low quality garments which were of uneven and irregular size of very inferior quality. The net weight of the consignment was also found to be only about 3,820 Kgs as against declared net weight of 10,200 Kgs. in respect of the shipping Bill No. 1287830 dated 17.6.2003. Thus the goods were grossly mis-declared in resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icular date the shipping bills were filed, he (i.e. the proprietor) was out of station. It also contended that revocation of licence is too harsh an action and prayed for setting aside the impugned order. It cited judgement of CESTAT in the case of M/s Pranil Shipping Vs . CC, Jamnagar vide Final Order No. A/11432 dated 24.7.2014 in its favour. 4. The ld, DR, on the other hand argued that mis-conduct on the part of the CHA is very serious inasmuch as the shipping bills of such high value were filed without verification about the identity of the exporter and that the CHA was very much in the know of the fact that the said Shipping Bills were being filed and still its proprietor Shri Bhatia did not take any precaution nor did he ensure due d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e genuineness of the exporter. Further, it is seen that apart from goods being mis-declared in description and value, even the weight was much less than the weight declared. In respect of one Shipping Bill, the actual weight was only about 3800 kgs. while the declare weight was more than 10000 kgs. CHAs are required to follow the provisions of CHALR, 2004, in terms of which (Regulation No. 13) the Custom House Agent is inter alia required to obtain authorisation from each of the companies/firms by whom he was being employed, ensure that all documents, such as bills of entry and shipping bills delivered in the Customs Station by him show the name of the importer or exporter, as the case may be, and also ensure that he discharges his duties a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the principle of liability of the CHA for the act of its employees went on to observe as under: "27. We have noted what the Tribunal has observed in the impugned order. In our view, the finding given by the Enquiring Officer and thereafter the order passed by the appellant in original are fully justified on the facts of the case. The authorities relied upon by Mr. Kantawala undoubtedly are mostly of the Tribunal. Even the judgment of the Calcutta High Court speaks about the suspension of licence not to be continued indefinitely. Here, we are concerned with revocation which has been resorted to after a due enquiry. We are conscious that the punishment has to be commensurate with the misconduct and that by revocation the respondent and its ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., its findings and order will be improper and perverse which is what has happened in the present case. Similarly when one comes to the disciplinary measures, one must not lose sight of the fact that the appellant-Commissioner of Customs is responsible for happenings in the Customs area and for the discipline to be maintained over there. If he takes a decision necessary for that purpose, the Tribunal is not expected to interfere on the basis of its own notions of the difficulties likely to be faced fay the CHA or his employees. The decision is best to be left to the disciplinary authority save in exceptional cases where it is shockingly disproportionate or mala fide. That is not the case here, (emphasis added). 29. In the circumstances, we....