TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evade the custom duty and hence, the Petitioner was suspended from working/performing the customs related activities - Held that:- The suspension of CHA licence was made on 19.11.2014, which was not within 15 days from the date of receipt of the report from DRI. On the representation of the Petitioner, the suspension was revoked by order dated 23.12.2014, accepting the delay of one year. However, by notice dated 23.12.2014 under Regulation 20, it was proposed to impose penalty and to forfeit the security, which is also barred by limitation. Despite the same, it is the case of the Respondents that on intelligence, it was found that the Petitioner misdeclared and undervalued the goods and has violated the provisions of the CBLR. - without goi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (k) of CHALR 2004 (Regulation 11(a), 11(b), 11(d), 11(e) and 11(k) read with Regulation 18(b) of CBLR 2013) that the said importers mis-declared the value and retain sale price to evade the custom duty and hence, the Petitioner was suspended from working/performing the customs related activities. The 1st Respondent without issuing any show cause notice as envisaged under Regulation 22 of CHALR, passed an order dated 19.11.2014, suspending the operation of CHA licence in terms of Regulation 19 of CBLR 2013. The suspension was made only on 19.11.2014, which is not within 15 days from the date of receipt of the report from DRI. The Petitioner filed written submissions dated 13.12.2014. Then, the 1st Respondent revoked the suspension order date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This court heard and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials placed on record. 6. The suspension of CHA licence was made on 19.11.2014, which was not within 15 days from the date of receipt of the report from DRI. On the representation of the Petitioner, the suspension was revoked by order dated 23.12.2014, accepting the delay of one year. However, by notice dated 23.12.2014 under Regulation 20, it was proposed to impose penalty and to forfeit the security, which is also barred by limitation. Despite the same, it is the case of the Respondents that on intelligence, it was found that the Petitioner misdeclared and undervalued the goods and has violated the provisions of the CBL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
