Page 179 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

2020 ] COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI v. FREIGHT FIELD (MADRAS) PVT. LTD. 89

(a) With regard to the charge of non-possession of any authorisation from
the importer, the inquiry officer has discussed the issue in detail and
come to the conclusion that in the instant case the CHA has signed the
blank Annexures prescribed by the Customs to file the Shipping Bill
which do not provide any provision for the exporter to sign and needs
to be signed only by the CHA. Only in the case of filing the manual
Shipping Bill there was a provision for exporter to sign. Hence, the
case laws relied upon by the CHA are not relevant to the case. The
Managing Director of the CHA Company himself admitted that he
didn’t have any authorisation from the exporters. The CHA didn’t
even know who the exporters were. Hence, the violation of Regulation
13(a) stands proved.
The CHA in their written submissions had only discussed that not
getting authorisation is not a grave offence to cancel the licence of the
CHA and also blamed the officers for not verifying the authorisation.
However, he had not denied that the fact that he had not obtained the
authorisation. Moreover, the Managing Director of the CHA Compa-
ny himself admitted that he has not even met the exporters, so no
question of taking any authorisation from them. Hence, I find that the
violation of the Regulation 13(a) stands sustained.
(b) With regard to the Regulation 13(b) of transacting business either per-
sonally or through an employee duly approved by Dy. Commissioner
of Customs, it is revealed from the inquiry officer report that the
Managing Director of the CHA Shri K. Rajashekaran, in his statement
had accepted that he has signed the blank Annexures and handed
over the same to M/s. Freight Bridge International, for monetary con-
sideration. And also stated that he does not know the consignor, con-
signee and description of the cargo or any other particulars pertaining
to the subject consignment. From this it is proved that the CHA has
not transacted the business either personally or through his staff who
is authorised staff and hence, the violation Regulation 13(b) is proved.
Moreover, the business was handled by Sh. Rajaji of M/s. Freight
Bridge International, Chennai, who is not the authorised staff of the
CHA. Hence, the violation of Regulation 13(b) stands proved.
The CHA in his submissions had stated that it is not necessary to
know the exporter to meet the exporter in person before handling the
consignment in the Customs House; that as long as the documenta-
tion is proper and the authorised staff has handled the customs work
there cannot be any allegation of violation; that in the present case
though the annexures were handed over to Freight Bridge Interna-
tional, the noticee staff undertook the processing work; that though
the CHA in his statement has admitted that he did not meet the ex-
porter but has categorically submitted that his authorised staff pro-
cessed the work.
From the above submission, I find that the submission of the CHA
that his authorised staff processed the work is an after thought but not
presented at the time of Investigation. Moreover, the so called author-
ised staff is authorised signatory of another CHA M/s. Freight Bridge
International. Hence, the violation of Regulation 13(b) also stands proved.
(c) With regard to the violation Regulation 13(d) the inquiry officer re-
vealed that the CHA did not even enquire about the holder of the IEC

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  179