Shri Rajendra M Purohit vs C.C. Jodhpur

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order dated 11.7.2013 revoking their CHA license no. 02/CHALR/2004 dated 11.02.2004 and

forfeiture of security deposit of Rs.11,000/- and invoking penalty of Rs.5,000/- under CHALR, 2004.

The facts of the case are that on receiving information on 09.05.2011 a container was stuffing in the cargo at ICD RAJSICO, Jodhpur. The

container was interpreted and found that in the guise of handicraft goods, used goods were being stuffed in the container. At the time of stuffing Shri

Mohit Charan was the employee of the appellant was present and Shri Ashok Charan filed the shipping bill and other relevant papers. As a mis-

declaration of the goods were found, therefore, proceedings against the appellant was initiated and their CHA license was suspended on 13.08.2010.

Thereafter proceedings under Regulation 22 of the CHALR, 2004 were initiated against appellant and it was alleged that appellant has violated

regulation 13(b), (d), (e) and 19(8) of the CHAL Regulations, 2004. Consequently, after completion of proceedings, their CHA license was revoked.

Security deposit of Rs.11,000/- was also forfeited and penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act 1962 of Rs.5000/- was also imposed. Aggrieved

from the said order, the appellant is before us.

The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that there are some lapses on the part of the appellant themselves. As they were required to supervise

and train their employees but there was no knowledge of the appellant to stuff the goods declared by the exporter. To support this contention, he relied

on the proceedings initiated against the appellant under Customs Act wherein appellant has been discharged by Order in Appeal no.15-16(0PD)

CUS/JPR- 11/13 dated 30.09.013 by the Ld. Commissioner (A) holding that there was no mensrea of the appellant. He further submits that as the

appellant is out of business for more than 3.5 years, therefore, for the lapse admitted by the appellant, the punishment is already suffered by him. In

these circumstances it is prayed that the impugned order is to be modified to the extent that order of revocation of their CHA license be withdrawn.

On the other hand, Ld. AR supported the impugned order and submits that it is clear from the facts of the case that their were lapses on the part of

the appellant and they were not having supervision over their employees and therefore they have violated Regulation 13(b), (d), (e) and 19(8) of

CHAL Regulations, 2004. Therefore, the charges against the appellant have been proved by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order

alter going into the details of the case. Therefore, impugned order is to be upheld.

Heard the parties. Considered the submissions.

We do agree with the contention of the Ld. AR that there were some lapses on the part of the appellant and for that appellant is liable to be

penalized. But we find that appellant has already suffered more than 3.5 years and is not in business since 13.10.2011. Therefore, punishment suffered

by the appellant is sufficient in the facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, impugned order is modified to the extent that order of

revocation of CHA License No. 02/CHALR/2004 dated 11.02.2004 is set aside.

With these terms the CHA license of the appellant becomes operative with immediate effect. Appeal is disposed off in the above terms.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)