9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 911X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in concluding that the case of the appellant herein did not warrant interference and thereby dismissing the application for stay of the suspension of the license of the appellant in terms of Regulation 19(1) of the CBLR, 2013? b. Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT was justified in concluding that the case of the appellant herein did not warrant interference and thereby dismissing the application for stay of the enquiry proceedings contemplated in terms of Regulation 19 of the CBLR, 2013? c. Whether violations of any of the Regulations of the CBLR, 2013 by the customs agent automatically attract suspension of their license in terms of Regulation 19 of the CBLR, 2013? d. Whether suspension of the licence of the appellant pending enquiry is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have an unblemished service record without any inquiry initiated against them. It appears that the Docks Intelligence Unit (in short, DIU), Custom House, Chennai investigated a case in which red sanders were attempted to be smuggled in the guise of MS round pipes vide SB No.9880221 dated 05.02.2014 and the exporter was M/s.Dharani Roofing Plant Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore. The appellant had acted as the customs broker for the export consignment. The allegation of the Department is that the appellant had acted as a customs broker in the transaction based on the representation of Badri K.Narayanan, who was the main culprit in the attempt of smuggling of red sanders in the guise of MS Pipes. For this alleged violation, the Customs Department suspen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 4. Pursuant to that, the Tribunal took up the matter and dismissed the stay application stating that the entire issue should be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the appellant has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 5. Heard Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Xavier Felix, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials placed before this Court. 6. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that none of the plea with reference to prima facie case has been considered by the Tribunal. All that the Tribunal held is that the challeng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
