Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (11) TMI 502

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the CMC employee, to the extent that such statement inculpates the appellant s G. Card Holder as having been associated with the transaction in issue. - respondent in prohibiting the appellant from exercising his constitutionally entrenched right to pursue his occupation/business, without authority of law and what is more, contrary to rights declared in his favour pursuant to the final order of the Tribunal dated 3.7.2014. Revocation of his licence by the impugned order is another instance of acting without a semblance of an authority of law and in egregious abuse of seminal and elementary principles of due process. A senior officer of the rank of Commissioner of Customs is expected to be familiar at least with elementary standards of fair .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Red Sanders Logs under the guise of export of furniture through the Mumbai Port to Dubai from ICD, TKD, New Delhi, the container in question was intercepted, seized and a letter addressed to the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi on 30.04.2012 intimating the seizure. On 16.05.2012, a statement was recorded from an employee of CMC, New Delhi, which stated that the said shipping bill was filed through CMC by the appellant as CHA as per the entry in the export job register. Mr. Dev Singh Rawat, the employee of CMC purportedly stated that the shipping bill was filed by one Shri Surender Kumar Singh, G.Card Holder of the appellant and that some other person, whose name he did not know, had approached him for the said shipping bill. Mr. Rawat als .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llant reiterates the assertion in oral argument that despite confirmation of his licence suspension having been invalidated by this Tribunal, the appellant was not allowed to function as CHA. This plea categorically pleaded by the appellant is not denied by the respondent. 7. On 11.06.2014, after over 22 months from the date of receipt of the offence report and in gross violation of CHALR, 2004, as amended in 2010, a show cause notice proposing revocation of appellants licence was issued. On 16.09.2014, the Dy. Commissioner concerned furnished his inquiry report drawn up in pursuance of the show case notice. This report concluded that contravention of CHALR Regulations, 2004 by the appellant herein, as alleged in the show cause notice, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Commissioner of Customs (General). This order revoked appellants CHA licence and forfeited the entirety of his security deposit of ₹ 75,000/-, purportedly under Regulation 18 read with Regulation 20(7) of the Customs Broker Licencing Regulation , 2013. 12. Suffice it to notice that in para 27 of the impugned order, the respondent while disagreeing with the analyses and reasons set out in the inquiry report dated 18.07.2014 concludes that the appellant violated CHALR, Regulation, 2004. This conclusion is on the basis of the statement of the CMC employee, Shri D.S. Rawat. 13. Having carefully considered the sequence of events adverted to supra, the conclusion is irresistible and compelling that there has occurred gross violation .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... issue a show cause notice proposing to disagree with the inquiry report, the appellant was deprived the opportunity to seek cross examination of Shri D.S. Rawat. 15. It is specifically alleged in the memorandum of appeal that despite this Tribunals order dated 3.7.2014 setting aside the order dated 10.07.2012 (confirming suspension of the appellants licence), the appellant was not permitted to pursue his business nor was his licence restored. The respondent has thus, contrary to and in gross abuse of law, disabled the appellant from exercising his fundamental and guaranteed right to carry on his occupation and business, guaranteed under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution. 16. We record our strong disapprobation of the arbitrary c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates