TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1046X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... H/40489/15 & C/41150/2015 - Final Order No. 41671 / 2015 - Dated:- 9-12-2015 - Hon ble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member And Hon ble Shri P. K. Choudhary, Judicial Member For the Applicant : Shri Derrick Sam, Adv For the Respondent : Shri Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) ORDER Per R. Perisasami The appellant filed miscellaneous applications for stay and early hearing of the case. In view of the Hon ble High Court of Madras Order dated 27.10.2015, after disposing both the applications, we take up the appeal itself for hearing. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are Custom House Broker registered with Chennai Customs House and allowed to operate at Mumbai Commissionerate under Regulation 7 (2) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15849/2015 dismissed the proceedings and investigations under Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013 against the appellants. The Hon ble High Court has discussed the facts in detail, which is reproduced as under:- a. WP. No. 15849/2015:- The order of the Mumbai Customs commissionerate, dated 02.02.2015, prohibiting the petitioner from operating as a customs broker was received by the respondent on 09.02.2015 and in view of the undervaluation in the 10 Bills of Entry, the goods were seized on 10.12.2014. The IEC code does not belong to the importer and voluntary statements have been given by the importers and the owners of the code under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the IEC holders were not aware of the import consignments and they we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only be from the date of knowledge of the offence as held by this court in 2014 309 ELT 433 in para 17. (iv) That the power under Regulation 18 and 20 dehors the power under Regulation 19 and the provisions of the Customs Act as evident from the reading of the Regulation 18 and 19. And upon perusal of the letters of the counsel for the petitioner in WP No. 15849/2015, this court is unable to come to a conclusion that the request to keep the matter in abeyance, pending appeal was a request amounting to waiver of the period under Regulation 20. 54. From the above judgement, what can be derived is that the waiver must be specific and the person must have knowledge about the consequences of such waiver. In the present case, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
