LOHIA TRAVEL AND CARGO Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi who has revoked the CHA licence of the appellants on the ground that they had failed to exercise supervision over their employees, Shri Mukesh Goel and Shri Virender Singh, as required under Regulation 20(7) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on receipt of complaints of involvement of the Customs House agents in two different cases, the Commissioner of Customs suspended the licence of the CHA vide order dated 23 -9 -1996. The CHA preferred an appeal to the Tribunal against the suspension, the Tribunal vide order dated 16 -12 -1996, stayed the operation of the suspension but gave liberty to the Commissioner to proceed with the enquiry in terms of Regulation 23 of the CHALR and directed completion of the enquiry at the earliest. The enquiry was conducted by an Enquiry officer who submitted an Enquiry Report. In the first case of short shipment of about 24 MTs of Polypropylene ropes, the Enquiry officer concluded that a case for cancellation of 'H' Card authority on Shri Virender Singh was made out but that no case was made out for cancellation of CHA licence. In the second case also, the Enquiry officer has exonerated the CHA. However, the Commissioner has held that the fraud committed by Shri Virender Singh (in the case of short shipment of polypropylene ropes) took place with the connivance of the employee of the CHA and in the normal course of business of CHA and therefore, liability of the CHA as an employer cannot be wiped out. In the second case, the Commissioner has held that even if Shri Mukesh Goel did not inform or take the CHA partners into confidence regarding export of hashish, the liability of CHA as an employer for acts of omission or commission of his employee in the normal course of business of the CHA cannot be ruled out. For this reason, he has held that in both the cases, the CHA is liable under Regulation 20(7) of the CHALR.

(3.) WE have heard both the sides and carefully considered the rival submissions. In the first case of short shipment where the bill of entry was filed by M/s. Master Marketers through the CHA, a show cause notice dated 26 -9 -1996 was issued and adjudicated vide order in original dated 18 -11 -1995 dropping the charge of abatement to fraud against the CHA. The relevant extract from the order of the Adjudicating Authority is reproduced below : -