JUDGEMENT
P.K. Das, J. -
(1.)THE appellant, a Customs House Clearing Agent, filed this appeal against revocation of CHA Licence and forfeiture of the security deposit of Rs. 75,000/ - under Regulation 20 of CHALR, 2004. The relevant facts of the case in brief, as revealed from the records are that the appellants are holder of CHA Licence No. TRY37/2002 issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Trichy, for providing CHA service since 2003 at Chennai. In August, 2008, they had been permitted to transact business at Tuticorin also. They engaged Shri C.T. Jagan, Manager to look after the Tuticorin Branch Office. They used to send blank signed Annexure -A/Appendix -I forms to their Tuticorin office to use as per requirement. At the end of January, 2009, it came to their knowledge that more number of Shipping Bills were filed at Tuticorin Customs House by the Manager compared to the number of blank signed forms given by them to the Tuticorin office. Shri Jagan, by letter dated 26 -2 -2009, admitted that he had forged the signature on the forms and filed the Shipping Bills without the knowledge of the Chennai Office. The DRI officers intercepted the consignment on 27 -2 -2009 accompanied with two Shipping Bills both dated 27 -2 -2009 filed by the appellant for the export of stainless steel utensils on behalf of their client M/s. JVM International, Tiruppur. After detection of the goods by the DRI officers, and on examination of the container it was found that Ketamine Hydrochloride was concealed in the utensils, which is restricted chemical and no objection certificate from Narcotic Commissioner is required for export. The exporter is not traceable. The appellant lodged FIR No. C0856317, dated 2 -3 -2009 at Tuticorin South Police Station that Shri C.T. Jagan forged their signature on the Form -H Card issued to him by the Customs House.
(2.)A show cause notice dated 1 -1 -2010 was issued to the appellant proposing to forfeit security deposit of Rs. 75,000/ - and to revoke CHA Licence under Regulation 20 of CHALR, 2004 for the failure to comply with the provisions of CHALR, 2004 and for the gross misconduct, negligence and recklessness as stated in the show cause notice. By the impugned order, the learned Commissioner revoked the CHA licence and forfeited the security deposit of Rs. 75,000/ -.
The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant gave duly signed blank forms to their employee at Tuticorin Branch Office for the reason that the work should not hamper as per trade practice. He submits that the appellant had no knowledge of the forging of the documents by their Manager Shri Jagan at Tuticorin Branch Office. He further submits that the appellant had taken a proper and reasonable step against Shri Jagan, Manager insofar as they lodged a FIR against him. It is contended mat the appellant has been maintaining an unblemished record as CHA since 2002. There is no material available that the appellant had any involvement in the alleged illegal export. It is also submitted that a show cause notice was issued against illegal export for the said two Shipping Bills wherein it was proposed to impose penalty on the appellant under Section 114(i) and Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. By Order -in -Appeal No. 43/2011, dated 24 -5 -2011, the Commissioner (Appeals), Trichy, waived the penalties imposed on the appellant holding that the appellant -CHA is not involved in the said illicit export. He submits that in the similar situation the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Falcon Air Cargo and Travels (P) Ltd. v. Union of India - : 2002 (140) E.L.T. 8 (Del.), observed that in such cases the right to carry upon trade or profession in the background of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India has to be noted. He submits that the appellant has no role in such alleged illegal export and by way of revocation of CHA licence, the livelihood of the appellant along with their employees have come to a standstill.
(3.)THE learned AR submits that it is admitted by the appellant that they have sent signed blank Annexure -A/Appendix forms to the Tuticorin Branch Office in an irregular manner. Shri A. Tajmul Sulaiman, Power of Attorney of the appellant -firm in his statement dated 4 -5 -2009 blamed the Manager for misuse of the forms by forging his signature. He submits, according to the appellant, it came to the knowledge at the end of January, 2009 that their Manager Shri Jagan had been forging customs documents and they obtained an admission letter from the Manager to that effect on 26 -2 -2009, just one day before the interception of the goods by the DRI officers. This fact itself indicates that the appellant was involved with the Manager. He relied upon the following decisions: - -
(i) Commissioner of Customs v. Worldwide Cargo Movers - : 2010 (253) E.L.T. 190 (Bom.)
(ii) Commissioner of Customs v. H.B. Cargo Services - : 2011 (268) E.L.T. 448 (A.P.)
(iii) Sri Kamakshi Agency v. Commissioner of Customs - : 2001 (129) E.L.T. 29 (Mad.) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP as reported in, 2002 (142) E.L.T. A87 (S.C.).
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.