Decided on April 08,2015

Baid Organization Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Commissioner Of Customs (Airport And Admn.) Respondents

Referred Judgements :-



DR.I.P.LAL,J - (1.)
(2.)THIS Appeal is filed by the Appellant against the Order -in -Original No.KOL/CUS/AIRPORT/ADMN/23/2012 dated 17.10.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs(Airport & Admn.), Kolkata, wherein he has has revoked the CHA license of the appellant under Regulation 20(1) of CHALR 2004 and forfeited the full amount of security deposit furnished by the CHA.
Acts of the case are that an intelligence was collected by DRI that certain operators/importers are indulging in duty evasion by mis -declaring old car attracting higher rate of duty as new car chargeable to lower rate of duty. Further, the value and model of these imported vehicles were found to be mis -declared inasmuch as high end vehicles/SUV were imported in the guise of low end vehicles. Investigations conducted against some of the operators revealed that bills of entry in 62 such cases were filed in Customs House, Kolkata by the CHA M/s. Baid Organisation (P) Ltd. at the behest of one Shri Suresh Halde, a resident of Thane(Maharashtra). In his statement dated 17.6.2009 Shri Halde stated that he was advised by one Shri Balu Patil, who suggested that they could make more money for customs clearance of the vehicles imported by Charanjit Singh and Rajesh Jethani. He stated that he was informed by Shri Charanjit Singh and Shri Rajesh Jethani that some such vehicles could be imported through Kolkata port and therefore he along with Shri Balu Patil visited Kolkata and happened to meet Shri Monoj Baid in the Kolkata Customs House running his business in the name of M/s. Baid Organisation (P) Ltd. He requested Monoj Baid to allow the use of his CHA license for import clearance of impugned vehicles through Kolkata port and offered Rs. 7,000/ - per job to which Shri Monoj Baid agreed. He admitted that these vehicles were imported on behalf of Shri Charanjit Singh. Shri Monoj Baid in his statement dated 23.7.2009 admitted that he allowed his license to be used by Shri Suresh Halde for the monetary consideration. It appeared that in the present case M/s. Baid Organisation (P) Ltd., the CHA had violated the provisions of Regulation 12, 13(a), 13(b), 13(d) and 13(e) of CHALR 2004. Consequently license of the CHA was suspended vide establishment order No. 11/2010 dated 11.01.2010.

2.2 In the meantime the appellant filed a writ petition being WP No. 61 of 2010 in the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta. In terms of an interim order dated 19.8.2010 in the said petition, the commissioner of customs(airport & admn.) allowed the CHA to carry on their CHA business till 16.01.2011 which was extended to 16.7.2011.

2.3 Show cause notice issued to M/s. Baid Organisation (P) Ltd. for revocation of licence and forfeiture of his security deposit for violation of the above -stated regulations which was adjudicated by commissioner of Customs (Airport & Admn.) vide order dated 15.07.2011. After considering the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, various submissions made by the Appellant and fActs of the case as per available record, he upheld the charges framed under Regulation 13(a), 13(d), 13(e) and 19(8) of CHALR, 2004. He revoked the license and forfeited the security deposit under regulation 20(1) of CHALR. On Appeal by the appellant CHA against the above order this Tribunal remanded the matter vide order dated 20.3.2012 to adjudicate the case afresh after considering whether the CHA has procured the proper authorization from the impugned importers. In the remand order dated 17.10.2012 the ld.Commissioner has dropped the above charges but upheld the charge of violation of Regulation 13(e) of CHALR, 2004. Consequently, he again revoked the licence and forfeited the security deposit. Being aggrieved present appeal is filed before this forum. The Revenue has not filed any appeal against the dropping of charges by the ld.Commissioner.

(3.)LD .Advocate for the appellant assailed the order on the ground that although the adjudicating authority has upheld the charges of violation of Regulation 13(e), but no reasons are mentioned in the said order. He submits that Regulation 13(e) requires that the CHA shall impart to a client any information with reference to the clearance of the cargo, but the order of the Commissioner is silent on this issue as to which information was required to be imparted. He submits that all other charges have been dropped in this case except the charges on violation of regulation 13(e) of CHALR, 2004. It is the submission that in case of Sai Nath Clearance Agency v. CC(General), Mumbai reported in : 2011 (269 ELT 106(Tri.Mum), wherein out of the four charges, two have been proved by the respondent, this Tribunal held that continued operation of the commissioner s order in such a case was not justified. He submits that in the present case, the CHA s licence was revoked on 15.7.2011 and since the then CHA is out of a job which is adversely affecting his livelihood. Under the circumstances the CHA has been sufficiently punished.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.