TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (11) TMI 137
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or not taking due care concerning the correct value which resulted in excess claim for drawback. 2. Shri Ashok Mehta, learned Advocate, submitted that the Delhi High Court has remanded the matter vide Order dated 13-8-2001 in CWP 635 of 2001 [2002 (140) E.L.T. 8 (Del.)] filed by the Appellants as the Tribunal had not dealt with their contentions and for considering all relevant aspects and for drawing a balance sheet of gravity of infraction and mitigating circumstances. He, further, submitted that the first show cause notice dated 8-11-1995 was issued to them for revoking their CHA licence on the allegation that one of their employee Shri Kanshi Ram Rana appeared for examination on 8-9-1995 on the strength of a photocopy of his Identity....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of information which he imparts to his client with reference to the clearance of the Cargo can not be held true as none of the persons had made any allegations against them and all documents were prepared by the representatives of Pinks Cargo Agency and the Appellants filed the same with the Customs in the normal course of their business as clearing agent. The learned Advocate contended that the Adjudicating Authority had not given any reasons for not accepting the first report of the inquiry officer in which they had been exonerated completely; that in the second report also, inquiry officer had substantially exonerated the Appellants of the charges made in show cause notice; that Kanshi Ram Rana had stated in his statement that alleged c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; Lohia Travel & Cargo v. Commissioner of Customs, 2001 (129) E.L.T. 668 (T) (iii) Damani Bros. v. C.C., Kandla, 2000 (125) E.L.T. 582 He also mentioned that the Appellants have been sufficiently punished as they are out of work for last two years; that in addition they had been imposed with a penalty of Rs. 35,000/- for not assisting the Exporters in preparing correct document. 4. Countering the arguments, Shri Jagdish Singh, learned J.D.R., reiterated the findings of the Commissioner as contained in the impugned Order and emphasized that the Inquiry Officer in the second case gave his Report that the export documents were prepared by Pinks Cargo Agency and the Appellants had signed and filed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Exports Pvt. Ltd." The Adjudicating Authority has found the Appellant liable as the Shipping bills had been signed by the Appellant. We also observe that the Inquiry Officer had also suggested as under : "While adjudicating, the adjudicating authority may please take into consideration the amount of penalty imposed on the Exporter, representative of M/s. Pinks Cargo Agency and the CHA by the Commissioner of Customs ICD since the same do reflect the complicity and the extent of abatement and connivance." 6. The said Order No. 9/98, dated 29-4-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Customs ICD, New Delhi imposing penalty on the Appellants herein. Exporter and M/s. Pinks Cargo Agency came up for consideration of the Tribunal and vide Order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lhi High Court, while remanding the matter, had expressed the view that "when revocation is directed it has to be only in cases where infraction is of a very serious nature warranting exemplary action on the part of the authorities, otherwise two types of actions (suspension and revocation) would not have been provided for.........the authorities while dealing with the consequences of any action which may give rise to action for suspension, revocation or non-renewal have to keep several aspects in mind. Primarily, the effect of the action vis-a-vis right to carry on trade or profession in the background of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution has to be noted. It has also to be borne in mind that the proportionality question is of great sign....