OVERLAND AGENCY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREV.), KOLKATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, ld. Consultant for the appellant and Shri K.K. Sanyal, ld. JDR for the respondents.

(2.) SHRI Chattopadhyay submits that the appellant is a Customs House Agent duly licensed under the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulation, 1985. The licence was issued in the year 1974. The appellant was appointed and authorised by M/s. Souvik Exports Ltd., a regular exporter for export of mealing wheat to Bangladesh on behalf of M/s. West Bengal Essential Commodities Supply Corporation Ltd., a Government of West Bengal Undertaking. M/s. Souvik Exports Ltd. approached the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) that the mealing wheat was stored at T.T. Shed, Halid for export to Bangladesh by barge. The mealing wheat was brought from Food Corporation of India, Haryana. For export of the goods from AWAI Jetty, they sought permission from the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), West Bengal, Kolkata. After certain correspondences, the Superintendent of Customs under his letter dated 31 -1 -2003 informed M/s. Souvik Exports Ltd. that the loading permission could not be given outside the specified places under Section 7 of the Customs Act, 1962. The exporter further requested the Commissioner for loading of the goods from AWAI Jetty, Haldia as were permitted on previous to load the goods from AWAI Jetty, Haldia. It was also intimated that the barges were waiting for loading of the goods. The exporter requisitioned the services of the Superintendent of Customs by depositing appropriate fees and the Superintendent of Customs visited Haldia and supervised the export. The goods were exported under the supervision of Customs. M/s. Souvik Exports Ltd. have made the handwritten addition of the word Haldia in the box meant for mentioning LCS. Mr. Premanshu Bhowmik, the authorised representative of the exporter in his written statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 before the Customs Officials has admitted that the word Haldia in the box meant for mentioning the LCS was written in his own hand. He submits that the separate proceeding for imposition of penalty on the appellant under the provisions of Sections 112 and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 was initiated apart from the proceeding for revocation of the licence in the instant proceeding. He submits that the proceeding for imposition of penalty under the provisions of Section 112 and 117 of the of Customs Act, 1962 has been culminated in the order of the Honble CESTAT, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata being Order No. S -270/A -364, dated 4 -5 -2005 [2005 (192) E.L.T. 480 (Tribunal)]. By the said order, this Tribunal has set aside the order of the imposition of penalty on the appellant and exonerated the appellant from the charges framed therein.

(3.) LD . Consultant submits that when the appellant has been exonerated from the charges of main appeal for imposition of penalty against him under the provisions of Sections 112 and 117 of the Customs Act, his licence cannot be revoked on the same charges. He relies on the decision rendered in the case of Continental Cargo Services v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi reported in 2001 (129) E.L.T. 545 (Tribunal). He further submits that prior to loading and export of the goods from Haldia a lot of correspondences was exchanged between the exporter and the Customs authorities seeking their permission to load and export the goods from Haldia. He submits that on the previous occasion, such permission was granted. As such, anticipating the permission from the Commissioner of Customs amended the Shipping Bills and added the word Haldia for which the appellant could not be held liable. He submits that the penalty of the revocation of licence has been imposed on the appellant and liable to work with him. He, therefore, submits that the appeal may kindly be allowed.