TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1399
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Customs Appeal No. C/50754/2018-CU[DB]), passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby Order-in-original dated 06.02.2018 of the Commissioner of Customs (General), Custom House, New Delhi cancelling Customs House Agency License of the Appellant, has been upheld. 2. It is the case of the Appellant that he is the proprietor of M/s Exim Cargo Services and works as Custom House Agent/Broker and used to facilitate importers in completing the necessary documentation provided by the importers or their nominated persons for clearances of imported goods from customs. During 2015-2016, one importer i.e., M/s Pax Technology Private Limited imported certain Point of Sale and/or Mobile P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 and the following question of law was framed: "Whether the CESTAT fell into error in attributing the statements of Rajender Kumar @ Raju to the appellant and whether the finding with respect to the omission and negligence was of such magnitude as to call for revocation of the CHA licence in the circumstances of the case?" 4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records. From the records, it is evident that the statement of one Rajender Prasad - an employee of the appellant, was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. A perusal of the statement shows that he has not made any admission of any wrongdoing, or guilt in the matter of acting as the Customs House Agent of the importer Exim Cargo Services. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respect of import consignment of M/s Pax Technologies. Question 7: You are being shown the copy of statement dated 14.01.2016 tendered by Shri Sanjay Kataria under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, where he has stated that Ms. Latha used to authorize Shri Sandeep, your employee to obtain D.O. and other documents from DHL in respect of her import consignment. Please comment? Answer: As stated above, we Susheel Kumar Mishra, Sanjay Kataria and myself have common business interest and hence all the three were managing the business jointly and our employee Sandeep was also following the instructions and directions issued by Sanjay Kataria. Question 8: You have stated that you three viz. Susheel Kumar Mishra, Sanjay Kataria and yoursel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in my earlier statement dated 15.01.2016, that the invoices representing. The correct value of the goods, imported by M/S. Pax, were forge by me by making scanned copy. There by declaring lesser value to customs resulting in short payment of custom duty. On being specifically asked I state that with this act of forgery we all three Shri Sanjay Kataria, Sushil Kumar Mishra benefited where the money earned was not distributed by us on mutually agreed upon basis. On being further informed that in bill of entry no-35266007:DT 9/12/15, 334699 or 23/11/15, 3141261 or 3/11/15, 2763917 or 30/09/15, 2121203 or3/02/15 and 2094937 or 31/07/15 paper rolls have also been declared besides declaring terminals, I state that the *copy of invoice for these ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... he works along with his associates Sanjay Kataria and Sushil Kumar Mishra, who are the ones who had done the paper work on the basis of information derived from the importer. The respondents have proceeded to cancel the license of the appellant on the basis of the statement attributed to Rajender @ Raju. Further, a perusal of para 2 of the Order-in-original, as well as the separate statements of Rajendra Prasad and Rajendra @Raju shows, that Rajendra Prasad (G-card holder and employee of the Appellant) aged about 57 years, S/o Sh. Mahesha Nand, CHA Address RZ-E450, Gali No. 27-C, Sadh Nagar-II, Palam Cly, New Delhi, whose statement was recorded u/s 108 of Customs Act on 14.03.2018 is one person, whereas Rajender @Raju, s/o Sh. Chhabil Das,....