Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.28 seconds)
Commr.Of Customs vs M/S K.M.Ganatra & Co. on 14 January, 2016 cites

M. Murali Babu, Proprietor And M/S Nanda ... vs Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai on 11 September, 2001

“We have considered the submissions. We find that it is an admitted fact that the appellant has allowed Shri Vipul Shah to crry on business on monthly rental basis or a consignment basis which has resulted in fraudulent exports by his client whose credentials were not lloked into by the CHA. This cannot be considered as a mere commission agent being employed by the CHA. In fact no authorization from the customer in favour of the CHA is on record and the copy produced by the appellant is without any date and there is no evidence that it was procured before taking up the business of the exporters in question. On the other hand the appellants contend that the same was recovered by the DRI but could not show any panchnama to that effect. We find that the 4 tribunal has in the case of Noble Agency held that the statement of defence witness that employer for whom he was working did not have CHA licence and that he was using licence of the noticee CHA on payment of monthly sums is sufficient to prove subletting of licence. The decision has been concurred with in the case of Nanda International Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai – 2004 (176) I.L.T. 524 (Tri. -Chennai) the only difference being that since in latter case the licence remained revoked for a period six years & therefore, a lenient view was taken and the licence was restored though forfeiture of security deposit was upheld. In the instant case, we find that the licence has been suspended for the last two years and has now been revoked permanently. We consider it too harsh a punishment as it deprive the CHA of his livelihood. We consider that revocation for a period of three years from the date of suspension of licence (i.e. 1.3.2004) would be sufficient and on expiry of three years licence may be restored on taking fresh security deposit as we confirm the order of the Commissioner in forfeiting the security deposited by the appellant earlier.” We have reproduced the said paragraph only to highlight that though the tribunal has taken into consideration the admissions made by the respondent, findings recorded by the Commissioner and the act of violation by the respondent, yet it has exercised the discretion by directing restoration of the licence after the expiry of three years from the date of suspension of the licence on the ground that factual matrix warranted a lenient view to be taken.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 0 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1   2 Next