Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The CHA violated the conditions in the bond executed by them under Regulation 10 of CHALR 2004.
2. They have not obtained authorization from the company by whom they are for the time being employed a CHA and failed to comply with the provisions under Regulation 13(a) of CHALR, 2004.
3. They have signed blank documents and handed over to an unauthorized person to facilitate the import, who was to be duly approved by the Dy. Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Customs under Regulation 13(b) of CHALR, 2004.
4. They have not advised their client to comply with the provisions of the Act and thus violated the provisions under Regulation 13(d) of CHALR, 2004.
5. They have failed to verify the correctness of the information provided, in as much as he colluded with the importer as the goods were not lying in the CFS wherein he got the examination report and thus failed to fulfill the obligation under Regulation 13(e) of CHALR, 2004.
6. They attempted clearance of imported goods by mis-declaring the same under CTH 72044900 instead of CTH 7302 in the guise of scrap metal by claiming Notification benefit under Notification No. 21/2002 S.No. 200 and thus failed to fulfill the obligations under Regulation 13 (f) of CHALR, 2004.
17. As the cargo was a misdeclared item and the value of used rails was low, the CHA should have advised their clients to comply with the provisions of CHALR, 2004 but neither he has advised so nor brought the discrepancy to the notice of the proper Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner at Custom House. Thereby the CHA has violated Regulation 13(d) of CHALR, 2004. Instead of advising the clients to comply with the provisions of CHALR, 2004, the CHA himself colluded with the importer and facilitated the assessment of Bill of Entry even after knowing the mis-declaration and undervaluation of cargo. The CHA has failed to comply with Regulation 13(f) of CHALR, 2004.
16.?While great emphasis is placed by Sri C. Kodandaram, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the previous unblemished record of the CHA, it must be borne in mind that a single act of corruption is sufficient to award the maximum penalty which, under the CHALR, is of revocation of the license. (State of Punjab v. Ex-Constable Ram Singh - (1992) 4 SCC 54. That the respondent has been found guilty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, which proceedings have attained finality, is also a factor which must be borne in mind. While Tribunals constituted under the Customs Act, and this Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 130 of the Customs Act, are required to ensure that the punishment imposed is commensurate to the proved acts of misconduct, the present case which not only involves negligence on the part of the CHA in issuing blank shipping bills, but also an act of corruption in receiving Rs. 150/- as consideration for each such blank shipping bill would necessitate imposition of the maximum punishment which, under the CHALR, is of revocation of the license of the CHA. Mere suspension of license, in the facts of the present case, would be wholly unjustified. Ordinarily, matters of discipline lie in the realm of the competent authority i.e., the Commissioner of Customs who is best placed to understand the importance of the CHA in a customs area, and the trust and confidence reposed on him by the customs department. In an appeal, preferred against an order imposing punishment under the CHALR, the CESTAT should not be swayed by considerations of misplaced sympathy. Interference with the punishment imposed would be justified only when it shocks the conscience of the CESTAT. No indulgence can be shown to persons indulging in acts of corruption. The punishment imposed on the respondent, by the Commissioner of Customs, of revocation of their license, when viewed in the light of the grave and serious acts of misconduct held established, is justified. The punishment imposed is not one which can be said to shock the conscience of courts/Tribunals. The order passed by the CESTAT on mere surmises and conjectures and their interference, with the punishment imposed by the Commissioner, on grounds of misplaced sympathy is in excess of their jurisdiction, and gives rise to a substantial question of law necessitating interference by this Court under Section 130 of the Customs Act. The order of CESTAT is, therefore, set aside, and the order of the Commissioner, revoking the license of the respondent CHA, is affirmed. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. Hence, the ratio of the Honble A.P. High Court ruling is also applicable to the present case. The appellants relying on the case laws are clearly distinguishable and are not applicable to the present case. In view of the foregoing decisions and by respectfully following the Apex Court and the High Courts, the revocation of the CHA licence of the appellant and forfeiture of security deposit ordered in the impugned order is upheld. The appeal is rejected.