Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s S.K. Logistics Versus CC (General) New Delhi

2015 (11) TMI 1155 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Revocation of CHA license - Forfeiture of security deposit - Misdeclaration of goods - violation of Regulation 13(a), (d), (e) and (o) of the CHALR, 2004 - appellant had not obtained authorisation from the exporter who was not in existence - Held that:- It is evident from the facts and evidence on record and is not contested by the appellant that the appellant did not take any authorisation from the exporter and had never met it (i.e. exporter) or got in touch with it (i.e. the exporter) even on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd thus it failed to fulfil its obligation under Regulation 13(d) ibid and thereby stood in violation thereof. For the same reason, the appellant was not in position to impart any information to its client and hence the violation of Regulation 113(e). We however agree with the appellant that Regulation 113(o) came into existence 08.04.2010 and therefore it cannot be held guilty of violation thereof as the shipping bills were filed in July 2009.

As against the time limit of 90 days pre .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

al Order No. 53069 / 2015 - Dated:- 30-9-2015 - Mr. G. Raghuram, President And Mr. R. K. Singh, Member (Technical) Sh. Prabhat Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner Ms. Suchitra Sharma, Commissioner (AR) : for the Respondent ORDER: Per: R. K. Singh: Appeal has been filed against order dated 10.04.2015 in terms of which the Customs broker license of the appellant was revoked and security deposit forfeited. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under: On 12.01.2010, seventeen shipping bills cove .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vestigation. It was found that (i) Four shipping bills of M/s Reliance Overseas were filed by the appellant on 28.07.2009 and (ii) The exporter was non-existent. The Commissioner held that the appellant had not obtained authorisation from the exporter who was not in existence and thus violated Regulation 13(a), (d), (e) and (o) of the CHALR, 2004 and on that basis revoked the appellants license and forfeited the security deposit. 3. The appellant has contended that: (i) Shipping bills were file .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nnot be held guilty of violation thereof. (vi) The proceedings are vitiated because the time limit prescribed under Regulation 22 of the CHALR, 2004 had not been adhered to and cited the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Schankar Clearing & Forwarding vs. CC (Import & General) 2012 (283) ELT 349 (Del.). (vi) No proforma for obtaining authorisation was prescribed and in such circumstances obtaining signature of the exporter on the Bill of entry / shipping bills was sufficient co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n the other hand argued that it is a fact on record that the appellant never met the exporter or got in touch with it and therefore violation of Regulation 13(a) (d) and (e) is clearly established. The timeline prescribed in Regulation 22 is not mandatory and is to be treated to be directory. 5. We have considered the contentions of both sides. It is evident from the facts and evidence on record and is not contested by the appellant that the appellant did not take any authorisation from the expo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

position to advise it (i.e. the exporter) to comply with the provisions of the Customs Act and thus it failed to fulfil its obligation under Regulation 13(d) ibid and thereby stood in violation thereof. For the same reason, the appellant was not in position to impart any information to its client and hence the violation of Regulation 113(e). We however agree with the appellant that Regulation 113(o) came into existence 08.04.2010 and therefore it cannot be held guilty of violation thereof as th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is evident from the Regulation 22(5) quoted above the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs was required to submit enquiry report within a period of 90 days from the date of issue of notice under sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 22. In this case, such notice was issued on 14.10.2011 while enquiry report was submitted on 19.01.2015 which is more than three years after the notice was issued under Regulation 22(1). Ld. DR has contended that the timeline prescribed und .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version