2018 (9) TMI 766

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s broker licence no. 11/518 of M/s Zulash Clearing & Shipping Agency and forfeited the security deposit. Proceedings were initiated under the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulation, 1984 following the alleged forgery of signature of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs on the duplicate copy of shipping bill no. 11288/21.05.2005 which had, inadvertently, been left blank while approving the shipment. Upon being directed by the Export Department of the Customs House to have the omission rectified, Nilesh B Malpedi, with the full knowledge of another employee, undertook the forgery as the said Assistant Commissioner was on leave. 2. Following enquiry prescribed under the regulations which reported that the customs broker had failed to exerc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ature of public official since that is a serious crime. 6. With the above direction, appeals of both sides are disposed remanding the matter as above and cross objection filed by the CHA against appeal C/1238/06 of Revenue is disposed.' 3. In the fresh proceedings, the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General) has gone on to revoke the licence leading to this appeal. We take note that, in doing so, he has conceded the lack of malafide /fraudulent intention but, holding that such was not relevant, that criminal intent would suffice. It is also admitted in the impugned order that Revenue has not been impacted by this resort to expediency on the part of the employee of the appellant. In proceeding to hold the customs broker responsible f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on leave. That undoubtedly, as found by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, is not tolerable. However, the conclusion following from the report of the duly constituted inquiry authority that the licencee had failed in supervisory responsibilities is not on the same footing. 6. We take note of the lack of any finding in the impugned order that the customs broker was aware, let alone, of conniving in the forgery. In the first round, the licencing authority was not convinced that the supervision was expected to extend to such matters as the licencee was not informed about. We find that the revocation of licence and forfeiture of security deposit has been ordered in the absence of any further evidence recorded in this round that could lead ....