TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 690
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tuticorin (impugned order). 2. Brief facts are that it is the allegation of the department that M/s. Suvidh Overseas a firm purportedly owned by one Shri Sunil Sukhdev Chavan and it was found to be a bogus firm with wrong addresses declared. During the investigation, it was found that M/s. Suvidh Overseas had tampered 4 DFRC licenses issued for the import of 'cotton printed fabrics' as if they were issued for the import of 'polyester fabrics'. They bought these licenses from the firms for which the DGFT had issued licenses in lieu of export of cotton printed fabrics through Nhava Sheva Port. On further inquiries it was found that the license holders sold their licenses to others and it became evident that they were exporting cotton and p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Revenue. 3.1 Shri K.S. Murugan stated that he is the Managing Partner of M/s. Green Port Shipping Agencies which acted as a Custom House Agent / Customs Broker (CHA/ CB) in Tuticorin for a firm by name M/s. Suvidh Overseas, Mumbai owned by one Shri. Sunil Sukhdev Chavan, for the clearance of Polyester fabrics. He stated that the offence in this case pertains to Shri Deepak Bajaj who procured and forged the 4 DFRC's for the clearance in the name of M/s. Suvidh overseas by creating a bogus person in the name of Sunil Chavan; arranged TRA' s for the said clearance; stored the imported goods at the godown and diverted the goods into local market. There is no allegation that he as CHA/CB had aided and abetted Shri. Deepak Bajaj in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....we can proceed to examine the issue related to Shri K.S. Murugan a co-noticee. 4.2 The department has appealed against the order to enhance the penalty imposed under sec. 114A equal to the customs duty levied and interest payable. 4.3 Shri K.S. Murugan has appealed against the penalty imposed on him. 5. We find that this is a case where the appellant is alleged to have knowingly aided, abetted and colluded in the use of forged DFRC licence with Deepak Bajaj for monetary consideration and violated the provisions of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulation 2004 [CHALR 2004], as detailed in Rule 13a, d and e. Hence, he allegedly rendered himself liable for a penal action under section 112(a), 1122(b)of Customs Act 1962 in addition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cheque or demand draft; however, investigations revealed no regular banking transactions associated with these clearances. Shri Murugan stated that he had received Rs. 23 lakhs in cash, with Rs. 14 lakhs still outstanding. Of the Rs. 23 lakhs paid Rs. 10 lakhs was received at Shri Bajaj's office, and Rs. 13 lakhs was deposited in Shri Murugan's bank account in Mumbai by Shri Deepak Bajaj. Although five cheques were provided by M/s Suvidh Overseas, Shri Murugan never deposited them into the CHA's company's bank account. Inquiries conducted by department officers with the relevant bank revealed that Account No. 921 with M/s Shramik Sahakari Bank Ltd, Vashi, New Mumbai, actually belonged to M/s Keyur Impex, not M/s Suvidh Overseas. Based o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the alleged Rs. 1.88 crore duty evasion. There is no evidence that the appellant assisted in the fraud; C. Their work involved valid documents verified by Customs officers, with KYC requirements introduced only after Notification 30/2010 (NT). D. License authenticity checks were the responsibility of JNCH (Nhava Sheva) authorities, not the CHA. Goods were cleared based on official TRAs, and all details were recorded by Customs at Tuticorin. E. Errors with DFRCs are attributable to the issuing authorities, as the CHA acted in good faith. No authority cancelled or suspended the licenses or TRAs, and there is no proof of the appellant's involvement in forgery. F. Alleged breaches of CHA Regulations 2004 do not justify penalties und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and presumptions, is not sustainable in the eye of law. 9. It is perhaps for this reason that the SCN only seeks to limit the charge against Shri Murugan for violating the provisions of the CHALR 2004, as detailed in Rule 13a, d and e. 10. Whether the actions of a CHA for violation of the CHALR can be taken under the Customs Act 1962 was examined by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in M/s. Meticulous Forwarders Vs Commissioner of Customs [FINAL ORDER NOS. 40725 & 40726/2025, Dated: 14.07.2025], speaking through one of us [M Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical)]. The Bench held: "14. It may be gainfully shown that some of the omissions and commissions of the appellant, as alleged above, ultimately facilitated or aided the clande....