Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

[B] That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of   mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction   or   order   thereby   directing   the   Commissioner   of   Customs   (Preventive),   Jamnagar,   his   servant   and   agents to allow the petitioner Company to work as a  Customs House Agent at Customs House, Pipavav and  to allow the Petitioner Company to use all identity   cards issued in their favour for allowing them to work  as a CHA at Customs House, Pipavav.

7. Learned advocate for the petitioner would further submit that  the respondent authority itself has made it clear in the affidavit­ in­reply that such powers can be exercised only by the Mumbai  authority. He would further submit that the order impugned is  passed under regulation 21 of the Regulations, 2004 prohibiting  the   petitioner   to   work   as   Customs   Agent.   However,   before  passing the order impugned, the petitioner has not been called  for or heard and there was no occasion for the petitioner to put  forward his case before the authority. He would further submit  that   the   order   dated   28.02.2015   has   been   passed   under  Regulation 21 of the Regulations, 2004 on ground of breach of  Regulations   13(d)   and   13(e)   of   the   Regulations,   2004  subsequent to issuance of show cause notice dated 29.01.2015.  He would further submit that impugned prohibition order is of a  C/SCA/7072/2015                                                                                                 JUDGMENT permanent nature and has permanently restrained the petitioner  from working as Custom House Agent, and therefore, he would  submit that even if it is expected that the proceedings are of  independent nature, other than notice issued in the month of  January, 2015, such order should have been passed only after  giving  an  opportunity  of  hearing  to  the  petitioner.  He  would  further submit that even the order is passed in the month of  February,   2015   neither   Jamnagar   authority,   who   has   issued  notice   in   the   month   of   January,   2015   to   the   petitioner,   has  proceeded with the case nor the Mumbai authority has initiated  any proceedings under Regulation 20 of the Regulations, 2004  therefore,   the   petitioner   is   facing   serious   difficulties   and   the  order impugned, which is of a permanent nature, comes in the  way of the petitioner in carrying out his business activities as  Customs   Agent   in   Pipavav   area,   in   absence   of   any   other  allegations   except   non­payment   of   customs   duty   by   the  importer. Therefore, he would submit that the order impugned  is required to be quashed and set aside.

Also separate action against the CHA, M/s SSS   Sai   Shipping   Lines,   should   be   initiated   for   violating   Regulation   13(e)   of   Customs   House   Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004"

The following shall be substituted "Further,   M/s   SSS   Sai   Shipping   Lines,   CHA,  engaged  in  the  customs  work  failed  to  advice   M/s.   Fourcee   Infrastructure   Equipments   Ltd.,  about   the   provisions   of   the   Notification   No.   104/94. Later on when the party filed the Bills  of entry, CHA, failed to impress upon the party  to pay the Customs duty due on them within  the   stipulated   time   along   with   interest.   Also  CHA failed to advise noticeeto comply with the   provisions of the Act. In case of non­compliance,  the CHA shall bring the matter to the notice of   the   department.   As   per   the   Regulation   13(d)   and   13(e)   of   the   Customs   House   Agents  Licensing Regulations,   2004, a Custom House   Agent shall advise his client to comply with the   provisions   of   the   Act   and   in   case   of   non­ compliance, shall bring the matter to the notice   of   the   Deputy   Commissioner   of   Customs   or  C/SCA/7072/2015                                                                                                 JUDGMENT Assistant   Commissioner   of   Customs   and   he   shall   exercise   due   diligence   to   ascertain   the   correctness   of   any   information   which   he   imparts to a client with reference to any work   related   to   clearance   of   cargo   or   baggage.   As  mentioned   above,   the   CHA   failed   not   only  to  guide   the   party   to   pay   up   the   Customs   duty  within the stipulated time period of filing the  Bills of entry but also failed to bring the matter   to the notice of the department, which resulted  in   loss   of   revenue   to   the   extent   of  Rs.4,14,07,451/­. For the Acts ommission and   commissioner   on   the   part   of   CHA,   they  rendered   themselves   liable   for   penalty   under  Section 114A of the Customs  Act,  1962. Also  separate action against the CHA, M/s. SSS Sai   Shipping Lines, should be initiated for violating   Regulation   13(d)   and   13(e)   of   the   Customs  House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 (now  Regulation   11(d)   and   11(e)   of   the   Customs  Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013)."
"13. Further, M/s. SSS Sai Shipping Lines, CHA engaged   in   the   customs   work   failed   to   advice   M/s.   Fourcee   Infrastructure Equipments Ltd., about the provisions  of the Notification No. 104/94. Later on when the   party filed the Bills of entry, CHA failed to impress  upon the party to pay the Customs duty due on them   within the stipulated time along with interest. As per   the   Regulation   13(d)   and   13(e)   of   Customs   House   Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, a Custom House  Agent   (Custom   Broker)   shall   advise   his   client   to  comply with the provisions of the Act and in case of   non­compliance, shall bring the matter to the notice   of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant   Commissioner   Customs   and   he   shall   exercise   due  diligence   to   ascertain   the   correctness   of   any  information   which   he   imparts   to   a   client   with   reference to any work related to clearance of cargo or   baggage.   As   mentioned   above,   the   CHA   failed   not  only to guide the party to pay up the Customs duty   within the stipulated time period of filing the Bills of  entry but also failed to bring the matter to the notice   of the department, which resulted in loss of revenue   to   the   extent   of   Rs.4,14,07,451/­.   In   view   of   the   C/SCA/7072/2015                                                                                                 JUDGMENT above, the said CHA has failed to fulfill the obligation   under   Regulation   13(d)   and   13(e)   of   the   CHALR,  2004   and   thereby   rendered   themselves   liable   for   action under the provisions of CHALR, 2004.