TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1082X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quiry is bad and not called for. - there is no allegation made out against the appellant CHA firm of the active involvement in the alleged undervaluation by the said importers. Further no documents appeared to have been executed and handled by the said Faiyaz Merchant, on behalf of the appellant firm. It is further admitted fact that the suspension have been made by way of interim measure for alleged misgivings and/or action or inaction on the part of the appellant for imports prior to March, 2012, almost after 2 years and as such interim suspension, pending inquiry is bad and not called for. Interim suspension of the appellant CHA firm vide the impugned order is set aside. The Commissioner of Customs is directed to complete the inquiry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one M/s K.S. Group (H.K.) Ltd. the company had been created by one Mr. Sunil Jain and his brothers Mr. Manoj Meghraj Jain and Mr. Mitesh Kumar Meghraj Jain; defacto owners. Preliminary enquiry revealed that the subject goods are subjected to Levy of additional duty of Customs based on the RSP, as per Notification No. 49/2008 Central Excise (NT) 24/12/2008. It was found that the goods were being sold through webportals, like EBay and other retailers. Market survey of these goods revealed that the importers are only declaring 20 to 25% of the actual retail sale price. The proprietor of Riddhi Siddhi Collection Mr. Sunil Jain in his statement recorded, has admitted that he undervalued the goods by about 25% of the assessable value arrived at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ork for M/s Riddhi Siddhi Collection was started in April, 2010 and subsequently Sunil used to come for filing documents for both these parties, and importers also introduced M/s Aisha Electronics and its proprietor Mr. Faisal Javeri. Both the parties M/s Riddhi Siddhi Collection and M/s Aisha Electronics stop the clearance from Mumbai port since March, 2012. 3. Pursuant to the same report from the DRI, the licence of the present firm was suspended by ex-parte interim order dated 5/3/2014 and subsequently show cause notice was issued alleging, therein, that the appellant have violated the provisions of Regulation 10 of CBLR, 2013 which provides that every licence granted or renewed under these Regulations shall be deemed to have been gra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admitted in his statement that N form for non-payment of octroi charges, if the goods are to be taken out of Mumbai city limits were collected by them and given to the said importers. It was further admitted by the said Faiyaz; that the goods never left the city limits, as the transportation charges he was collecting, was from docks till Sewri or Crawford market. Therefore it appears that the appellant have by its act of omission and commission defrauded the Government s revenue by evading in payment of octroi charges which were due to be paid to Govt. Authorities. Further allegation was violation of Regulation 11(m), in that the Customs broker is required to discharge his duties with the utmost speed and efficiency and without any delay. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law and facts. It is further contended that the statement of CHA were recorded in November 13, in the course of enquiry which started sometime in July, 2013 and show cause notice in the Customs case under section 124 of the act was issued in December, 2013 for alleged undervaluation and evasion of duty. It is further urged that the inquiry notice was issued only in May, 2014 which is more than 2 years after the alleged events and/or misgivings on the part of the appellant. As such no sufficient reason is recorded by the Commissioner for suspending the appellant by way of an interim measure, pending inquiry and final disposal of the show cause notice issued, after the impugned order, in May 2014. It is further urged that the appellant CHA f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmediately suspended. Under the fact that the alleged violation was of the year 2005 September and the order of suspension was issued in October, 2006, itself indicates that there is no emergency which required that the licence be suspended. 8. It is therefore ordered that the interim suspension of the appellant CHA firm vide the impugned order is set aside. The Commissioner of Customs is directed to complete the inquiry proceedings expeditiously preferably within a period of 12 months from receipt of a copy of this order. The appellant CHA firm is entitled to carry on its business as CHA with immediate effect. 9. That the appeal is allowed in the aforementioned terms. A copy of this order be given Dasti to the parties. - - TaxTMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
