TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (12) TMI 705
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... confirmed the suspension order dated 18-10-2010. Aggrieved by the order dated 29-11-2010, the Appellant is before the Tribunal. 2. The license of the Appellant was suspended for the reason that they did not comply with the norms laid down in the regulation and the circular issued by C.B.E. & C. before taking up the business of one of their clients viz. M/s. A & N Impex, Ludhiana. Revenue has pointed out that this is a proprietorship firm registered in the name of Mr. Navdeep Singh who was a dummy acting on behalf of one Mr. M.K. Arora who imported consignments. The charge against the Appellant is detailed in para 4, 5 and 6 of the impugned order which are reproduced below :- "4. The sub-regulation (o) of regulation 13 of the Cu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntry on behalf of M/s. A & N Impex that was during May 2010. In the consignments cleared by the Appellant, no mis-declaration or duty evasion was noticed by the department. Later, the importer directly filed Bills of Entry for certain consignments and in those cases the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) detected some discrepancies. DRI has not yet submitted the final investigation report clarifying revenue loss or showing the involvement of the Appellant. They also submitted that before taking up the business of the said client, they had collected enough documents to satisfy themselves about the identity of the importer and his address. They also submitted that the department has no case that the impugned importer was not found at t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r met the client. Actually the documents to prove identity was submitted by one Shri M.K. Arora who was actually doing the business and thus the Appellant had failed in discharging his responsibility under CHALR. The ld. DR submits that investigation regarding the revenue loss that might have occurred is still continuing and the role of the Appellant in the matter also is under investigation and it will be premature to revoke the suspension of their license and such action will be prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 5. We have considered arguments on both the sides. The facts unearthed by Revenue so far does not indicate any active involvement by the Appellant in doing smuggling or facilitating smuggling. The only case brought out....