Page 180 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

90 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

code supplied by Shri Vikas Doshi. Thus, evidently, there was no
scope of the appellant giving any advice to the exporters to comply
with the provisions of the Customs Act or bringing non-compliance to
the notice of the department.
The CHA’s representation is that they have not given any wrong ad-
vice to their client for them to be charged with the violation of Regula-
tion 13(d).
For the above said violation, I find that the violation speaks about on-
ly advice to the clients to comply with the provisions of the Act, but
not about the wrong advice or correct advice. Once, the CHA has not
meet the exporter there is no chance of either giving advice or wrong
advice. The CHA cannot simply wash of the hands by saying that ex-
porter was not given any advice to perform illegal activity. It is the
duty of the CHA to at least meet the exporter and enquire about the
advice to be given to clients. Here has not even met the exporter or
verified the IEC Code. Hence, the allegation under Regulation 13(d)
stands proved.
(d) Regarding the violation of 13(e) the Inquiry officer had stated that it is
the responsibility of the CHA to verify the antecedents and reputation
of the exporter before accepting the consignment handling work from
them. If the CHA had exercised due diligence cast upon them under
the Regulation 13(e) the exporter could not have made an attempt to
export the banned goods in concealment. The CHA cannot shy away
from the responsibilities casted upon them under the Regulation 13(e)
by stating that examination of the goods is the officer’s responsibility.
In the instant case, as the appellant did not know the identity of the
exporter and permitted their licence to be used for clearance of the ex-
port consignment of such exporters under a “contract of service”, to
which such exporters had no privy, there was no scope for the appel-
lant advising the exporters regarding the particulars to be declared in
the shipping bills so as to ensure the correctness of such particulars
including the value of the goods. Hence, the allegation under Regulation
13(e) stands proved.”
(Emphasis is ours)
30. The licensing authority found that, Regulations 13(a), 13(b), 13(d)
and 13(e) was violated and the allegations made against the licensee in respect of
violation of these regulations stand proved. This has been, in detail, discussed in
the above said paragraphs quoted from the order of the Commissioner and con-
clusively at para 17 of the said order, he has stated as follows :
“17. Thus from the above discussion, all the allegations under 13(a), 13(b),
13(d) and 13(e) stand conclusively proved.”
31. However the reason given by the Commissioner of Customs (Im-
ports), who passed the Order-in-Original, for taking a lenient view by not revok-
ing the licence but imposed only a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-, according to him
reads thus :
“18. The CHA licence was already suspended for sometime and revoked
thereafter. Hence, I chose not to revoke the licence of the CHA. But it is nec-
essary to impose a severe penalty on them to prevent such incidences from taking
place in future.”
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  180