Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2024 (8) TMI 105 - AT - CustomsRevocation of Custom House Agent licence - forefeiture of security deposit in terms of regulation 20(1) of the CHALR 2004 - violation of the provisions of Regulation 13 (b) and 13 (j) of CHALR 2004 for aiding and abetting in smuggling of old and used computer peripheral laptops etc - HELD THAT - While it is an admitted position that certain documents could not be made available by the appellant to the authorities during the course of enquiry/adjudication process. However the time interlude between the conduct of the said proceedings and the clearance of the imported goods need to be noted. In any case the primary documents like invoice was made available to the authorities. It is however nobody s case that any time lag in sourcing for document was sufficient enough to provide amnesty from the breach of the regulatory provisions. However the admitted lapse need to be considered with rational implications. It is borne from records that Shri Tapan Kumar the G card holder and Shri Chakradhar the H Card holder of the firm were regularly associated with clearance of subject imports. Shri Sanjeev Kumar has reiterated the fact of examination of the imported goods in the presence of his own officers. The fact of any outsider named Sri Pappu however remaining present during the course of such examination cannot be considered an irregularity illegality on the part of the appellant. If the department was so awry of an outsider s presence at the time of examination it was for them to have directed such unauthorised outsider to be dispersed. It is found from records that the question of livelihood of the appellant has been in jeopardy for well over a decade - it is opined that the length of time having remained out of business is more than sufficient punishment for lapses to which they have been pronounced guilty by the lower authority - the immediate direction for restoration of the appellant s CHA license at the earliest is made - appeal allowed.
|