Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2013 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 987 - AT - CustomsStay application - Suspension of CHA License - Violation of Regulation 20(2) of CHALR - Held that:- formal authorisation is not essential where the importer who has imported goods does not contradict the CHA and does not say he has not authorised CHA to act on his behalf. The only difference in this case is that the CHA initially stated that he was not authorised but subsequently produced some letters. It is not known from where they came from, how they came from and why they were produced. Since the suspension has to be followed by proper enquiry, these aspects have to be looked into. Prima facie appellant have been able to make out a case that the contravention of Regulation 13(a) is arguable and requires consideration in detail and conclusion reached by the Commissioner may be sustainable or may not be sustainable. There is no admission by the CHA that he has not advised the importer and also there is no admission by the importer that he was not advised by the CHA. It is not clear on what basis the learned Commissioner has reached the conclusion that CHA has not given the advice and thereby violated the provisions. The ground taken by the learned Commissioner is that one IEC is of Jamnagar and another is of Mehsana and Shri Sachin Shah was in Bombay. Once the facts emerging from the records show that Shri Sachin Shah was importer and he has faced consequences for misuse of IEC, a view can be taken, that it was Shri Shah who should have been advised, who was dealing with CHA. In the absence of any evidence to show that Shri Shah has not been advised, prima facie the contravention of this regulation does not appear to be sustainable - Stay granted.
|