M D SADRANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who is the partnership firm was granted licence to function as Customs House Agent (CHA). An enquiry was held against the appellant for violation of certain regulations in respect of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. After an enquiry and after giving opportunity to the appellant, the licence of the appellant as CHA came to be cancelled by the Commissioner of Customs (General) by order dated 12-9-2006. That Order-in-Original was challenged by the appellant in an appeal before the CESTAT. Appeal was also dismissed by the Tribunal [2008 (228) E.L.T. 397 (Tri. - Mumbai)].

(2.) Record reveals that letter dated 18-7-2003 from Additional Director General of Central Excise (Intelligence) revealed evasion of customs duty by M/s. Swami Fashions Private Ltd. and M/s. Skyline Marketing. It was found that the forged documents were submitted for the purpose of clearance and the clearance was done in the name of the present appellant as CHA. On that basis, an enquiry was commenced and statements of several persons were recorded. It was revealed that the appellant had allowed M/s. Aditya Shipping Agency, M/s. Sachai Ma Clearing Agency, M/s. Balaji Clearing Agency to use their CHA licence no. 11/337, for monthly monetary consideration. Number of persons had obtained necessary customs pass on representation that they were working for the present appellant while infact they were working for the above referred three parties, who did not have their own CHA licence. The statements of the Kantilal Dand, B.P. Shinde and Hiren Ruparel, employees of the said firm, came to be recorded. Hiren Ruparel had specifically stated in his statement that they had obtained blank pre-signed shipping bills from the present appellant, M/s. M.D. Sadrani and utilised their names and facilities as CHA and for this purpose, amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month was being paid in cash to the appellant. It was found that none of these persons, who were using CHA No. 11/337 were actually working for the appellant. Suresh A. Sadrani and Pravin A. Sadrani, partners of the appellant/firm also admitted that they had given blank pre-signed shipping bills to their employees for the purpose of use. However, enquiry officer on the basis of record came to conclusion that those persons were not employees of the present appellant but working for different firms, who did not have CHA licence but who were using CHA licence of the present appellant for consideration. The statements of Suresh and Pravin Sadrani, who are partners of the appellant/firm, clearly shows that the firm had not undertaken clearance for some of the parties though their shipping bills had signatures of Suresh Sadrani. This admission corroborated the allegation that they had handed over pre-signed shipping bills to three different firms to use the CHA licence of the appellant. The enquiry officer dealt with the evidence minutely and came to conclusion that several regulations under which the licence was issued were violated by the present appellant. The appellate Tribunal also concurred with the Enquiry Officer.

(3.) Thus, there is concurrent finding of the fact by the two authorities that the present appellant had allowed the unauthorised persons to use their CHA licence for consideration and they also did not have sufficient supervision over the business being carried on under that CHA licence. In spite of lengthy arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any question of law involved in the present matter. He also could not point out that the findings of the two authorities below are perverse in any manner.