9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the appellant, who is a Customs Broker from working, in the Customs Station under the provisions of Regulation 23 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as CBLR 2013 for short). 2. Heard both sides. The learned Authorised Representative (Additional Commissioner) for Revenue raises a preliminary objection on jurisdiction of CESTAT to hear the matter. He argues that CESTAT has no authority to hear the appeals pertaining to Prohibition of Customs Brokers. Learned Authorised Representative relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of S.N.M. vs. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai 2014 (304) ELT 255 (Tri. Mum.). On the other hand, learned Counsel for the appellant take us to the provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner in the Prohibition Order, states as follows:- "I find that this vessel was specially designed to support the platform installations in emergencies and perform various functions such as fire and / or other natural calamities. This offshore support vessel is subjected to duty. The sole purpose of this vessel is not just Supply i.e. carrying of goods, but support i.e. multi functional activities such as fire fighting, rescue operations for platform installations, perform surveys and pollution control etc. Hence, it is clear that the purpose of importing the vessel Greatship Dhwani is to carry out multi tasks, which could be rightly classified under CTH 8905.90.90 and not under CTH 8901.9000. The above cited judgments are not relevan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 04 (now Regulation 11(d) and (e) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013)." 5. Thus, it is observed that the learned Commissioner had prohibited the appellant from working as Customs Broker on the ground that the Importer had not correctly classified the goods imported by them and the appellant had not properly advised in this regard. This is the only allegation against the appellant. 6. The root cause for the said allegation is import of a vessel for which Bill of Entry No. 698 of 2009-10 dated 09.03.2010 was filed. It is observed that the said Bill of Entry was provisionally assessed at the time of importation. The goods were also examined by the Customs Officers before the same was cleared out of customs charge. The examination ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
