9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e charges under Regulation 13(a) of the CHALR, 2004 stand not proved, even after noting that during the course of investigation it was found that the authorization was fraudulently obtained. (ii) Whether the CESTAT is right in law in holding that the remaining charges stand not proved, as the Respondents were not put to notice by the Commissioner, that he proposed to disagree with the Inquiry Report? (iii) Whether the CESTAT is right in law in holding that as per the decision of this Honourable Court, in the case of Delta Logistics, the Commissioner had not given notice to the Respondents, that he disagreed with the Inquiry Report, and the reasons therefor? (iv) Whether, the CESTAT has ignored the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Enquiry Officer were confirmed by the Commissioner of Customs by his order dated 20 April 2011 and the CHA license was revoked. (b) Being aggrieved by the order of Commissioner of Customs the respondent filed an appeal to the Tribunal. By order dated 2 July 2012 the Tribunal allowed the appeal holding that the authorisation was fraudulently obtained came to the knowledge only during the course of investigation and, therefore, at the time of clearance of the goods the respondent was under a bona fide plea that the authorisation was genuine. Further in support reliance was placed upon the decision of this Court in the matter of Commissioner v. S.S. Clearing and Forwarding Agency, reported in 2011 (263) E.L.T. 353 (Bom.) for al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorisation being used for the import of the goods. Thus allowing an importer to import goods. (d) As against the above, respondent - CHA submits that the importer was Mr. Mishra who had given them the Bank authorisation. The misunderstanding took place only in view of the fact that Mr. Mishra's signature on the authorisation did not tally with the record in the Bank. Further it is his case that IEC Code number would establish that the person who authorised the import viz. Mr. Mishra was an authorised importer. (e) We have considered the submissions and we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal as well as the Commissioner of Customs needs to be set aside and the matter be remanded to the Commissioner of Customs for a f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the Commissioner of Customs to issue notice to the CHA setting out the reasons why he does not accept the Enquiry Officer's report and thereafter pass an order after following the principles of natural justice. (b) In view of the decision of this Court in the matter of Delta Logistics (supra) Questions (ii), (iii) and (iv) also need not be answered by us as we are setting aside the order of the Tribunal as well as the Commissioner of Customs and remanding the matter to the Commissioner of Customs. The Commissioner of Customs would decide the matter afresh after giving the respondent notice setting out the reasons why he does not accept the conclusions of the Enquiry Officer and pass a fresh order after giving personal hearing to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
