Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 602 - CESTAT NEW DELHIRevokation of CHA licence - Disagreement with the enquiry report - advice to the client to comply with the provisions of Customs Act and exercise of due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any information with reference to work relating to clearance of cargo - Import of deodorants, perfumes - Held that:- the enquiry report analyzed various evidences with reference to these allegations and found that they are not proved. The enquiry report in full was communicated to the appellant by the Assistant Commissioner. A perusal of the said communication indicates that it enclosed the enquiry report and requested the appellant to submit their representation, if any, within 30 days in terms of Regulation 20(6) of CBLR, 2013. There is no indication or reference to any possible difference of opinion with reference to the enquiry report as entertained by the Original Authority. In other words, the enquiry report which exonerated the appellant totally, was communicated to the appellant for representation. Apparently, the appellant gave a reply reiterating their defence and supporting the findings of the Inquiry Officer. There is nothing to indicate that the appellant has been put to notice on the disagreement of the Original Authority with any part of the enquiry report. Therefore, it is clear that the present impugned order issued without indicating the disagreement with the enquiry report and getting the response of the appellant, is in clear violation of principles of natural justice by referring the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (General) vs. Dominic and Co. [2015 (8) TMI 142 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. The impugned order is unsustainable and set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant
|