By TIOL News Service

KOLKATA, DEC 02, 2014: ON the basis of an intelligence received by the officers of Dock Intelligence Unit (Preventive) to the effect that a firm by the name of M/s Brij Spinners of Ludhiana, was involved in fraudulent exports under claim of export incentives, three export containers were intercepted. It was found that in one case, ARE-1 copy was tampered. All the three containers declared to contain acrylic blankets were opened and examined and gross mis-declarations in respect of description, quantity as well as value, were found. It revealed that the shipping bill in respect of the above export consignments, were filed by M/s S. C. Ghosh & Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. The Commissioner found that the CHA had violated the provisions of Regulation 13 (a) and that of Regulation 19 (8) of the CHALR, 2004, therefore, revoked the licence and forfeited the security deposit of the CHA. The CHA is in appeal against the said order.

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal held:

It is evident from the provisions of CHALR, 2004 that the CHA is required to obtain an authorization from his client for the job of clearance of import and export cargo and that he is also required to ensure proper conduct of his employee in the transaction of business as Agent. As against this, the CHA failed to observe the above condition and therefore, is liable for the action under Regulation 20 of CHALR, 2004.

The invoice list and the packing list on the basis of which shipping bills were filed, were not received by the CHA from the exporter but from a third person, namely, Shri Arup Kumar Mukherjee. As no authorization could be produced by the Appellant CHA from the exporter, it is held that the charges of violation of Regulation 13 (a) are proved.

The Commissioner has rightly revoked the CHA licence and forfeiture of their security deposit. The said decision having been arrived at by the Commissioner after taking into consideration all relevant materials and the said Regulation and after following the due process of law, it could not be said that the said decision of the revocation of licence was unreasonable or the punishment dehors the doctrine of proportionality. The Appellant has failed to point out any perversity or unreasonableness of the part of the Adjudicating Authority, and therefore, there is no merit in the present appeal, consequently, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

(See 2014-TIOL-2415-CESTAT-KOL)