TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 489
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rfeiture of the security deposit, the appellant is in appeal before us. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an offence report from Joint Director Department of Revenue Intelligence Kolkata, Zonal Unit (DRI), on the role played by the Customs House Agent was received on 10/11/2017 along with relied upon document. Perusal of the offence report revealed that Red Sanders logs are being exported through Kolkata Port in one mis-declared export consignment covered under Shipping Bill No.5820910 dated 03.05.2017. Officers of DRI intercepted the consignment and found that the same Shipping Bill was filed by M/s. Panel Pin Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd. (IEC0299012182), of Salkia, Howrah for export of 440 bundles of 'H. C. Binding Wire' weighing 16,000 kgs to M/s. China Light Tri-Union International Co. Ltd. in vessel BLPL Blessing Voy No.1704S. The said goods were found to be removed under Central Excise supervision and seal. The consignment was loaded in the container and was traced and found lying at N. S. Dock, Kolkata Port, Kolkata. The examination of container by the officer of DRI revealed that the seal of the container was found intact as attached with the container, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C documents 'PAN Card, were handed over to Shri S. K. Alamgir of M/s. JAK Maritime & Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. All negotatiation with CB and freight forwarder was made by Shri Bipul Saha. (v) The container was loaded on vehicle No. NL02K 7426 and sealed with Shipper Seal No.Yang Ming India 177778 and under Central Excise supervision which was looked after by Shri Pratip Mitra and he signed the export related documents. The goods were removed for export under cover of ARE-1 dt. 02/05/2017 and Invoice dt. 02/05/2017. (vi) Statement of Shri Pratip Maitra, Accounts Manager of M/s. Panel Pin Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. was also recorded to confirm that the goods were loaded under supervision of Central Excise Officer and container was sealed. He was not aware as to how the Red Sander was found in the container which was sealed with the HB Binding wires. (vii) The statement of Shri Surendra Nath Mallick, Customs Broker was also recorded on 01/06/2017, under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 wherein he submitted that he received the KYC and other documents in respect of M/s. Panel Pin Manufacturing Co, Pvt. Ltd. from Raj Kumar Mondal which were handed over to the manager, Shri Amar Ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (n). Shri Amar Chandra Roy, Manager of the appellant got authorization on 28/04/2017 i.e. before filing of the Shipping Bill. However, authorization signed by Director came on 08/05/2017. So, it cannot be alleged that the CB has not followed Regulation 11A of CBLR. Regarding the violation of Regulation 11(d), he submitted that the goods were found in the sealed container and therefore it should not be said that the appellant has in anyway failed to advise his client to act as per law. Regarding the violation of Regulation 11k of CBLR, it is submitted that the required documentation were already with the appellant which was also handed over to DRI and the copy of which was also submitted to the Enquiry Officer. Regarding violation of Regulation 11(1), it is submitted that the appellant was a registered Central Excise Unit under Howrah GST Commissionerate and also under the Companies Act. These were verified from the records of Central Excise as well as Registrar of Companies. 6. It is the submission of the Ld. Advocate that the order of the Commissioner has resulted in highest punishment for the minor lapse committed by the appellant to the extent of obtaining the job throu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss was obtained through many middle person without any acquaintance with the appellant. This in itself will not render revocation of CB licence when the other punishment are invoked under the CHE Licensing Resolution. 10. We are in agreement with the decisions placed by the appellant in the case of (1) Ashiana Cargo Services Vs. Commissioner of Customs (I & G) & (ii) C. J. Joshi & Sons Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla (Supra) where in it is held as under:- "8. Charges relating to excess payment and such minor procedural formalities are not such as would justify revocation of the licence. The relative law of gravity of such contravention should not have deserved such a severe punishment. However, the question is whether the activities of Shailesh Varu, who was a nominally employed by the appellant were such to justify revocation of the appellant's licence. From the facts that we have discussed above, particularly the payment that Shailesh Varu was making to the appellants and presence of blank shipping bills, it cannot be said that Shailesh Varu was acting as a bona fide employee of the appellant. However, assuming that Shailesh Varu was aware or knowingly facilitated attemp....