AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The matter has been heard from time to time. An officer of the Department has brought the records today. The appellant is facing suspension of
CHA licence in terms of order dated 31.12.2016 passed under regulation 9(1) of CHALR, 2004. It was implicated in respect of export of ""Indian
Hand Tufted Woollen Floor Covering Carpet"" and ""Indian Floor Covering Carpet (Saggy Pol.)"" alleging that the CHA appellant failed in its duty to
follow KYC norm.
Consequent upon receipt of investigation report, Id. commissioner, passed an order temporarily suspending the CHA licence on 27.07.2012 under
Regulation 20(2) of CHALR, 2004. That order was confirmed by the impugned order, dated 18.09.2012.
Summarily, the allegations of the Department against the appellant under Regulation 20 of CHLAR, 2004 as appearing in para 18 of Show Cause
Notice dated 13.05.2014 were as under:-
(1) “The CHA has failed to supervise and control the action of his employees & has filed the said Shipping Bill without following the KYC norms.
(2) The CHA has failed to advise his clients to comply with the provisions of the act & in case of non-compliance, to bring the matter to the notice of
Deputy Commissioner of Customs.
(3) The CHA has failed to ascertain the correctness of the information that he imported to the client with reference to any work related to clearance
of cargo.
(4) The CHA has not ensured proper conduct of his employee [Sudhir Rama Chandra, G- Card holder] which is mandatory on the part of the CHA.
(5) The CHA has not exercised due diligence in the clearance as he made, signed & used fabricated & forged documents for the said export.
(6) The CHA failed in his obligation to ensure that the entries made in the SIB are correct & true declaration of value & description of goods is
made.
Reading of the aforesaid paragraph throws light that the Department has brought out only negligence of the CHA in respect of the goods of
aforesaid description exported from Mumbai. Also reading para 17 of the said Show Cause Notice indicates that the appellant deposed in his
statement that someone else had used his name as CHA to attempt export of the goods stated aforesaid from ICD, Tughlakabad. He categorically
stated that Shri Sudhir Rama Chandra Ghatge, G card-holder has committed the offence without knowledge of the CHA appellant.
Enquiry was made as to the involvement of the appellant to find out whether he had any exclusive knowledge or special knowledge of attempt to
export of the goods through M/s. A.S. Exports, Mumbai. Materials on record do not suggest active involvement of the appellant to conclude that
offence was committed by appellant. Therefore before completion of the under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004 any objection by tribunal would result
in miscarriage of justice.
It is apparent from the record that two years have expired from the order of suspension under Regulation 20(2) of CHALR, 2004. Proceedings
under Regulations 22 of CHALR, 2004 has already commenced. Looking into the time already expired, it would be appropriate to set aside the order
dated 27.07.2012 till conclusion of the proceedings under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004.
With the above conclusion, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court)