TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 519
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner of Customs under the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 (Now Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004) 2. The Appellants submit that, as CHA for their clients, the Appellants file declarations and the necessary documents as are required to be filed with the department for the purpose of check-list and generation of Shipping Bill through their employees. The Appellants have always been following this procedure which is the procedure laid down for the purpose of export of any goods and in accordance with the practice that is followed at the Air Cargo Complex. 3. The Appellants submit that the exporter in the instant case i.e. M/s. Accord Impex had approached the Appellants for filing declarations for which they for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....45 PM which is within few minutes of receipt of the consignments. Examination of the said consignment was also taken up on the same data but apparently for the reason that the goods being examined appeared to be of substandard quality, the consignment were held up. 6. The Appellants further submit that, the said consignment were taken up for examination on 11.01.2008 and it was prima facie found that the goods were overvalued with an intention to avail higher duty drawback, than what the exporters were eligible to. Investigations were carried out and the statement of the concerned exporters were recorded. Statement of the employees of the Appellants also were recorded wherein they had categorically given the details as to how and in what m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... exporter and the Appellants were not called upon for any purpose whatsoever apparently for the simple reason that there was no act of omission or commission on the part of the Appellants in relation to the export of the said goods. A copry of the said show cause notice is enclose herein at Exhibit- 'A'. Sr. No. S/Bill No. Date Description Unit Price (Rs.) Quantity FOB Value (RS.) DBK Claimed (Rs.) 1. 663337 10.01.2008 Leather Walletss 369 2316 855327.75 72702.86 2. 6633345 10.01.2008 Leather Walletss 369 2304 849104.64 72173.89 3. 6633354 10.01.2008 Leather Walletss 369 2487 914612.9 77742.1 Total 7107 26,19,045.29 2,22,618.85 9. The Appellants further submit that the sai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uty Commissioner of Customs. During the course of the inquiry proceedings, even though no witnesses were proposed to be examined on behalf of the Department yet, the two employees of the Appellants were examined on behalf of the Department. 12. During the course of examination of the witnesses by the Department, the witness confirmed the contents of the statement recorded during the course of investigations and during the course of the cross-examination explained that the consignment has been received at the Air Cargo Complex at about 5:00 PM and that immediately thereafter all the necessary formalities were completed which include registration, unloading and carting of the cargo and the consignments were presented for examination by about....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Appellants is enclosed herein at Exhibit-'F'. 15. The Appellants submit that, the Learned Inquiry Officer (IO) after taking into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the Department as well as the Appellants and also the evidence that had been brought on record during the course of the inquiry proceedings, submitted his report wherein it has been held by the Learned Inquiry Officer that the Articles of Charges framed against the Appellants are not approved. A copy of the said inquiry report is enclosed herewith at Exhibit-'G'. 16. The Appellants submits that while holding that the charges framed against the Appellants are not proved the Learned Inquiry Officer observed as under: Article of Charge-I (a) The charge under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yees of the CHA with reference to the three Shipping Bills in question In view of the above the Inquiry Officer stated that he was constrained to hold that the charges as contained in Article of Charge-I was not proved. Article of Charge-II (a) Article of Charge-II related to failure on the part of the Appellants to ensure the conduct of their own employees which rendered them liable to action under Regulation 19(8) of CHALR, 2004. (b) After going through the record and the submissions made in this regard, the Inquiry Officer stated in his report that he found the charge framed against the Appellants was not established. He reported that the charge was based on the alleged fact that there was misdeclaration of value with reference to ....