AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 319
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in misdeclared exports to avail undue benefit under the Duty Exemption Pass Book (DEPB) scheme. M/s Mars Overseas attempted to export 'calcium carbonate' in the guise of 'amoxyccillin trihydrate' under shipping bill no. 3295430/19.2.2005 which was ostensibly handled by M/s SS Salkar & Co but the work was executed by Shri Dattatray Chandrakant Bodke who, it was claimed, had no connections whatsoever with M/s SS Salkar & Co. The adjudicating authority who invoked the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 did find that to be so but also recorded his finding that Shri Pramod S Salkar, partner in the customs broking firm, had allowed Shri Bodke to use the licence for the exports handled by him. Consequently, penalty was imposed on Shr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... authority, it is, nevertheless, akin to serving in relation to specified activities under Customs Act, 1962. Revocation has the impact of dismissal requiring the same compliance as in disciplinary proceedings under labour laws. The same sanctity, diligence and adherence to principles of natural justice alone can accord credibility to the proceedings. 4. The inquiry officer has prefaced his report by laying down a constraining framework for the inquiry in a manner not contemplated by the Customs Broker Licencing Regulations. To begin with, reliance has been placed on the statements recorded under section 108 of Customs Act, 1962. That provision can be invoked by a gazetted officer either to give evidence or to produce a document or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns under section 108 thus binds the maker of the statement. Therefore, statements recorded under section 108 will prevail over the arguments put forth during the hearings conducted before me and in the defence of the CCHA.' 5. This makes it abundantly clear that the proceedings before the inquiry officer have not been in consonance with the principles of natural justice. The report of the inquiry officer is vitiated to that extent. 6. It is an admitted fact that Shri Bodke is neither a partner nor an employee of the appellant. It is also an admitted fact that it was Shri Bodke who signed the shipping bill and carried out all the activities of a customs broker in relation to the smuggled consignment. It is also indubitably clear that a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thorized use of CHA license by Shri Datta. CHA confined himself only to collect commission based on documents processed by Shri Datta using CHA license and left no scope to supervise or have control over the clients of Shri Datta. In this situation all the omissions and commissions on part of Shri Datta using CHA license becomes responsibility of the CCHA.' but has attempted the leap without any dexterity whatsoever. 7. It would appear that the inquiry officer would have been satisfied that appellant had no part in the misdemeanour of Shri Bodke had a police complaint been filed by the appellant. It is moot if the inference of misdemeanour has any solid foundation given the lack of any such action by customs authorities, who, too, sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... such be the ease of insinuation, the contention of the appellant that they were unaware of the illicit use of their licence is acceptable as within the realm of the possible. It would appear that there is no let or hindrance to any person filing a bill of entry or shipping bill without the knowledge of the broker whose authority is usurped. In these circumstances, we find no merit in the acceptance of the report of the inquiry officer by the licencing authority as sufficient grounds for revocation of licence and forfeiture of security deposit. 9. We now turn to a most crucial aspect. The proceedings commenced with imposition of penalty under Customs Act, 1962 which was carried to Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) by appellant . Ou....