M.D. SHIPPING AGENCY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant who is a CHA has filed this appeal against the revocation of their CHA licence no. 11/2006 on violation of provisions of Regulation of CHALR 2004. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Ventura Alloys & Electronics (India) imported zinc ingots under Advance Licence Scheme. The appellant were assigned the work of clearance of the said consignment. It is the allegation that the said consignment was allegedly diverted to some other place in spite goods being transported to the importer. In this scenario, proceedings under CHALR 2004 were initiated against the appellant and their licences were suspended on 17 -5 -2005. The said suspension was revoked on the direction of the Hon'ble High Court. Thereafter proceedings under CHALR were initiated against the appellant.

(2.) THE article of charge was that the appellant has violated Regulation 13(d) of CHALR, 2004 as the import clearance were made under advance licence scheme by M/S. Ventura Alloy & Electronics through the appellant cleared the consignment by availing duty concession and after the import clearance the CHA should have ascertained the cleared imported goods under advance licence scheme were transported to the address as mentioned on the script of the advance licence. In case of any deviation, the CHA should have advised the client about the provisions of the Act in case of non -compliance should have brought the matter to the notice of DC/AC of the Customs. By not informing the DC/AC about the deviation, the CHA has failed to comply with the above said regulation. The enquiry was conducted and as per the report of the enquiry officer, charge was held proved. Consequently, the Commissioner of Customs (Gen), Mumbai also held that as the charge for violation of Regulation 13(d) of CHALR has stand proved, the licence of the appellant was revoked and entire amount of security deposit was forfeited. Against the said order, appellant is before us.

(3.) ON the other hand, the ld. AR strongly opposed the contention of the advocate and submitted that as the importer and transporter are found to be non -existent, therefore, the appellant are to be held liable for diversion of the goods. He further reiterates the impugned order.