Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1096 - AT - CustomsRevocation of CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - whether the Commissioner in the impugned order has rightly deferred with the inquiry report given by the Inquiry Officer appointed by him to conduct inquiry regarding the charges against the appellant for noncompliance of CHALR, 2004/CBLR, 2013? HELD THAT:- Due to administration exigency there had been change in the Inquiry Officer by the ld. Commissioner. In fact this case four Inquiry Officer were appointed on the various occasions and the Show Cause Notice were accordingly amended by issuance of corrigendum. We do not find that the non-adherence of the time limit prescribed under Rule 22/20 of CHALR/CBLR be fatal in this case - Accordingly, there are enough reasons for non-completion of inquiry against the appellant within the prescribed time and the impugned order cannot be faulted on this ground as submitted by ld. Sr. Advocate. There is a clear evidence on part of the appellant as CHA to fail to discharge the duty casted upon under the provisions of CHALR/CBLR - the renewal has been made by the department following the prescribed procedure as the charges against the appellants were not proved till then. Having now inquiry report before the ld. Commissioner and subsequent disagreement thereof is on record and, therefore, the Commissioner cannot be faulted with a revocation of licence granted to the appellant for their involvement in the clearance of import consignment viz. drawing and design by their client M/s Tata Steel Ltd. - the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is sustainable under the provisions of CHALR/CBLR - Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|