NEPTUNES CARGO MOVERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are Customs House Agent (CHA) holding licence No. R -633 issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. The Commissioner noticed that one of the four Shipping Bills covering exports of what was declared by the exporter as 'natural slate stones' had been filed by the appellants as CHA for M/s. Ascending Impex, Chennai (Exporter) in April, 2005. It was also noticed that 'Red Sanderswood' was attempted to be exported in the guise of natural slate stone under those Shipping Bills. As part of investigations into the export made under the Shipping Bill filed by the CHA, the DRI recorded statements of (1) Shri B. Muralibabu, Director of the appellant -Company, (2) Shri K. Mohan, Proprietor of M/s. Overseas Cargoways, (3) Shri Venkatesalu alias M. Venkatesan, Partner of M/s. Prime India Logistics and (4) Shri Elanchezhian, Clerk, M/s. Prime India Logistics. From these statements, it appeared to the investigating agency of the department that the CHA had colluded with the exporter and Shri Elanchezhian for smuggling of Red Sanderswood. The Commissioner examined the findings of DRI and found gross misconduct on the part of the CHA, warranting action under Regulation 20(1) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations (CHALR), 2004. It appeared to the Commissioner that the CHA had prima facie failed to discharge their obligations under various provisions of Regulation 13 and also Regulation 19(8). Realising the need to prevent the CHA from committing further illegality and causing loss to the exchequer, the Commissioner took immediate action by suspending their licence under Regulation 20(2) of the CHALR, 2004, pending investigation and finalisation of the matter. This order was passed on 23.08.2005 and issued to the CHA under cover of a letter reading as under:

(2.) AS the original suspension order was made on 23.08.2005, the total period of suspension (18 months) ordered by the Commissioner is upto 23.02.2007 and not 23.01.2007 wrongly mentioned in the impugned order. Both sides have agreed on this aspect.

(3.) AFTER hearing both sides and considering their submissions, we find that it is not in dispute that at least one Shipping Bill viz. SB No. 2036539 dated 01.04.2005, wherein natural slate stones were declared to be the goods to be exported by M/s. Ascending Impex, was signed by Shri B. Muralibabu, Director of the CHA -Company for monetary consideration of Rs. 300/ - paid by Shri Elanchezhian of M/s. Prime India Logistics. It appears from the statements recorded by DRI that the Customs clearance work relating to the consignment was done by Shri K. Mohan, Proprietor of M/s. Overseas Cargoways and Shri Elanchezhian of M/s. Prime India Logistics. None of these parties was authorised for such work. Admittedly, the CHA did not know the exporter whose name was mentioned in the Shipping Bill. Hence, obviously, he did not obtain authorisation from the exporter for handling the consignment covered under the Shipping Bill. This conduct was in contravention of Regulation 13(a) of CHALR, 2004 as found by the Commissioner. As the CHA failed to transact their business either personally or through their duly appointed employees, they contravened Regulation 13(b) also. We have also noted that the charge under this provision has been admitted by the CHA before the Commissioner. Under Regulation 13(d), the CHA had an obligation to advise their clients to comply with the provisions of the Customs Act in relation to the export consignment. As they did not even know the exporter named in the Shipping Bill and other export documents signed by them, they must be found to have failed to advise their clients in terms of Regulation 13(d). In other words, the appellants failed to comply with the obligation cast upon them by Regulation 13(d) as found by the Commissioner. Again, by simply consigning Shipping Bill and connected export documents for monetary consideration and keeping away from the Customs clearance work, the CHA was neglecting to ensure correctness of the information given in the export documents, thereby committing breach of Regulation 13(e) as rightly held in the impugned order. Learned Commissioner has also found against the appellants under Regulation 13(n). His finding reads thus: