CUSAA 1-2016 & 12-2016

Page 1 of 15

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

CUSAA 1/2016

KUNAL TRAVELS (CARGO)

..... Appellant

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT & GENERAL)

NEW CUSTOMS HOUSE, IGI AIRPORT, NEW DELHI ..... Respondent

AND

+

CUSAA 12/2016

KUNAL TRAVELS (CARGO)

..... Appellant

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

(IMPORT & GENERAL)

..... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant:

Mr. Amarjeet Singh, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Abhishek Ghai,

Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

NAJMI WAZIRI, J.:-

1. These appeals are directed against the impugned order dated

08.06.2015 of the CESTAT, which upheld the order-in-original dated

01.05.2007 passed by the respondent – Commissioner of Customs revoking

the appellant‟s Customs House Agent (CHA) license and forfeiting its

security deposit of Rs.1 lakh.

CUSAA 1-2016 & 12-2016

Page 2 of 15

2. The said license was granted under the Customs House Agents

Licensing Regulations, (CHALR), 2004. The appellant had filed two

shipping bills on 17.06.2003 in the name of one M/s H.M. Impex regarding

the export of readymade garments entailing a duty drawback claim of about

Rs.34 lacs. Upon inspection of the goods by the customs authorities it was

found that against the declared weight of 10200 kg, the consignment

weighed only 3820 kgs. in respect of one of the bills besides the

goods/garments were of low quality and of irregular size. Hence the

customs authorities concluded that there was a deliberate mis-declaration

apropos the quality, quantity, value and weight of the consignments with the

intention to defraud the government and illegitimately claim the benefit of

duty-drawback.

3. The investigation apropos the exporter M/s H.M. Impex, at its given

address WZ-156, Madipur, New Delhi – 63, of which one Mr. Rajiv Kumar

was claimed to be its proprietor, but its Import Export Code (IE Code),

revealed that no such entity existed at the said address. An employee of the

appellant, Mr. Lalit Katoch, was said to be involved in the filing of the

export documentation and inspection of the consignments. The appellant‟s

proprietor, Mr. Sunil Bhatia had contended that the exporter was introduced

to the CHA by Mr. Lalit Katoch who was the appellant‟s sales executive,

and the latter in turn had been approached by one Mr. Vijay Gupta; the

proprietor claimed ignorance of the nature or quantum of the goods in terms

of the documents filed by Mr. Lalit Katoch, therefore, no allegation of mis-

declaration or fraud could be fastened upon him or upon the appellant.

Furthermore, he contended that the revocation of license for the submission

of documents by his employee was too harsh an action and it ought to be

recalled. He relied upon the judgment of the CESTAT in M/s Pranil

Shipping Vs . CC, Jamnagarby Final Order No. A/11432 dated 24.7.2014.

CUSAA 1-2016 & 12-2016

Page 3 of 15

4. The respondent, however, argued that the shipping bills were filed

without verifying the identity of the exporter or ascertaining the veracity of

the declarations made in the shipping bills for clearance of the goods through

customs for export; this was a necessary precaution that the CHA ought to

have taken before the documents were filed; this default shows a lack of due

diligence and of serious misconduct, hence the respondent‟s action was

justified. Especially, in view of the judgement of the Bombay High Court in

CC (General) Vs Worldwide Cargo Movers, 2010 (253) ELT 190 (Bom.)

and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CC Hyderabad-Il Vs H.B. Cargo

Services, 2011 (268) ELT 448 (A.P.).

5. In the impugned order the CESTAT had concluded that the shipping

bills were filed in the name of a non-existent entity/exporter viz. M/s H.M.

Impex, and there was nothing on record to show th