Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
P.B. Nair C And F Pvt. Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Customs (Gen.) on 8 May, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(108)ECC535, 2006ECR535(TRI.-MUMBAI), 2006(202)ELT829(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President
1. Vide impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs (General), New Customs House, Mumbai, has ordered suspension of CHA licence held by the appellants herein with effect from 14/12/2005, in exercise of powers conferred under Regulations 20(2) of the CHA Licensing Regulations (CHALR) 2004.
2. We have heard both sides.
3. The reason for suspension, as stated in the impugned order is that the appellants had cleared several imported consignments on behalf of the importers M/s. Venkateshwara Hatcheries Ltd., and M/s. Venky India Ltd., under the direct delivery mode at the Air Cargo Complex, Sahar, Mumbai, by affixing forged cash duty paid stamps on the relevant Bills of Entry, without payment of Customs duty at the time of final assessment of the goods, thereby deliberately causing loss to the revenue.
4. The appellants, who are represented by the Ld. Counsel, submit that it was one of their former employees Shri Sanjay Shinde, who had collected the amounts payable as duty from the CHA and misappropriated the money and affixed forged cash duty paid stamps on all the copies of the bills of entry. This happened during the period 2001 to 2004 prior to February 2005, when the CHA paid the duty, on coming to know the act of their employee from the importers. The shortfall of duty was made good by the CHA immediately on notice of the misconduct of their employee. The act on the part of the employee of the CHA was up to the period February 2005 and there has been a delay of approximately nine months in passing the order of the suspension of CHA licence. We note that in the case of Setwin Shipping Agency v. Collector of Customs , it has been held that a delay of approximately eleven months from the incident leading to the suspension was not justified and the Tribunal set aside the suspension, leaving it open to the department to conduct proceedings under Regulations 23. We also note the submission of the appellants that their employee Shri Sanjay Shinde had acted on his own in forging cash duty paid stamps on the bills of entry. The impugned order does not bring out the knowledge on the part of the CHA, whose licence has been suspended, about the action of their employee. Further, since the CHA, immediately on coming to note that the action of their employee, made good short fall in duty, we cannot accept the findings that the continuance of the CHA in transacting business in Customs stations pending enquiry under Regulations 23 is a grave risk and is prejudicial to the inquiry, since the documents relied upon by the revenue to hold that forgery was committed by the CHA employee are with the revenue and there has been no prior misconduct noticed by the Custom authorities on the part of the CHA during their fifteen years as CHA. We, therefore, hold that the suspension cannot be continued and accordingly set aside the same and allow the appeal. The department is at liberty to proceed in terms of the Regulation 23 of Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations, 1984.
(Dictated in Court)