Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.30 seconds)
Total Clearance vs Commissioner Of Customs-Mumbai - ... on 13 July, 2023 cites

Krishan Kumar vs Commissioner Of Customs, New Delhi on 13 February, 2002

In the case of Krishan Kumar Sharma v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi reported in 2000 (122) ELT 581 (Tri.), this Tribunal held that the mere fact of bills raised on the intermediary cannot be held against the CHA firm to prove that the CHA licence was sub-let or transferred. Therefore, in the light of the judgments cited above, the charge of violation of Regulation 12 is not established. As regards the violation of Regulation 13(a), the adjudicating authority himself has observed that the "I have no doubt to say that the CHA might have obtained the authorisation but it is surely not from the importer. Therefore, the authorisation submitted is not a valid one". This finding is based on a presumption. Obtaining an authorisation from the importer does not mean that the same should be obtained directly; so long as the concerned import documents were signed by the importer, it amounts to authorisation by the importer and, therefore, it cannot be said that there has been a violation of Regulation 13(a). As regards the last charge, i.e. the appellant did not transact the business through his employee but through Shri Sunil Chitnis C/86444/2022 6 thereby violating the provisions of Regulation 13(b), there is some merit in the argument. Both Shri Sunil Chitnis and Shri Ashish Patekar, authorised signatory of the appellant CHA, has admitted that it was Shri Sunil Chitnis, who undertook the clearance work on behalf of the CHA. Mere signing of the documents does not prove that the clearances were undertaken by the appellant CHA and, therefore, there is some merit in the argument that Regulation 13(b) has been violated by employing Shri Sunil Chitnis for doing the clearance work of M/s. Advanced Micronics Devices Ltd. The question now is whether revocation of licence is warranted for such a violation. In our view, the punishment should be commensurate with the gravity of the offence. Revocation is an extreme step and a harsh punishment, which is not warranted for violation of Regulation 13(b). Accordingly, we are of the view that forfeiture of security tendered by the appellant CHA is sufficient punishment and revocation is not warranted. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the revocation and direct the Commissioner of Customs (General) to restore the CHA licence subject to the forfeiture of entire security amount tendered by the CHA.'
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 7 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

K.S.Sawant & Co vs Commissioner Of Customs on 24 May, 2012

5. In terms of regulation 10(d) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, 'customs broker' is required to advise clients to comply with the provisions of Act and, in the event of non- compliance, to bring such to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. It was held that the appellant had not carried out the mandatory check of details of client as specified in regulation 10(d) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 owing to which the impugned transactions had been enabled. According to Learned Authorised Representative, the customs broker had neither obtained the authorization of the actual owner at all nor of the purported exporter directly and had not advised either to comply with the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. According to the licensing authority, lack of any personal contact with the customer/beneficial owner having been admitted and, in these circumstances, it cannot but be inferred that the customs broker could not have interacted with them to advise them of their obligations. Reliance was placed by the Learned Counsel on the decision of the Tribunal in K S Sawant & Co v. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai [2012 (284) ELT 363 (Tri.-Mumbai)] which held that C/86444/2022 5 '5.1 From the records, it is clear that the business in respect of the client M/s. Advanced Micronics Devices Ltd., was brought in by Shri Sunil Chitnis, who claims himself to be a sub-agent of the appellant CHA. The statements of Shri Badrinath and Shri Sunil Chitnis amply proves this fact. The question is, merely because the appellant procured the business through an intermediary who is not his employee, can it be said that he has sub-let or transferred the business to intermediary.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 Next