GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (4) TMI 925 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (4) TMI 925 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - 2016 (336) E.L.T. 543 (Tri. - Del.) - Validity of Prohibition order - Import of various high value cars - Stoppage of the business operations of the applicant - Appellant prohibited from working as Customs Broker at New Delhi Customs stations - Held that:- no evidence has come on record that the appellant authorized Mr. G S Prince expressly or impliedly. We note that the impugned order also held the appellant responsible for the acts of Mr. G S Prince, G car .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ugned order is passed without following the principle of natural justice and without due process of inquiry. The order was issued after almost 7 years of purported misdemeanor. Thus the prohibition order fails due to lack of due process, inordinate delay and on prima facie merit. Therefore, order of prohibition is not legally sustainable and accordingly set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant - Customs Appeal No. 50276 of 2016 In Customs Stay Application No. 50398 of 2016 - Final Order No . .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion 23 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulation 2013. The applicant moved the Hon ble Delhi High Court against the said order. The High Court vide their order dated 1.3.16 permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file statutory appeals before the Tribunal. The Hon ble High Court directed that in the event of such appeal being filed within 3 day, the CESTAT shall decide the stay petition within a period of 3 weeks. Accordingly, the applicant filed the appeal on 2.3.201 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

censed by Nagpur Custom House. They have a Delhi office to attend to work of Customs clearance in Delhi. The Delhi operations are managed and controlled by one Shri G S Prince, G Card holder and employee of the applicant. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence conducted certain investigation in 2011 relating to import of various high value cars. In one such case the investigation concluded in the issue of show cause notice dated 3.6.13 to various persons including the importers of one car - Toy .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing any penalty on the appellant under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. However, he recommended action against the appellant for violations under CHALR, 2004. 4. In the above factual background, the Commissioner of Customs (Gen), New Delhi issued the present impugned order prohibiting the appellant from working as Customs Broker at New Delhi Customs stations. We find the impugned order is being challenged of various grounds namely:- A. No notice was issued or hearing was held before such act .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appellants were never asked to explain about the role of their G card holder and they were never given an opportunity to explain their side of the case. 5. The learned AR submitted that the appellant cannot escape liability for the acts of his G card holder at Delhi office. He supported the impugned order of prohibition. 6. The admitted facts of the case are that the present action of the Commissioner invoking the powers under Regulation 23 of the CBLR 2013 is the consequence of recommendation .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ued to the appellant before issuing the impugned order. It is also an admitted fact that the prohibition now ordered with reference to work in Delhi Customs station has arisen out of import transaction of 2008 for which show cause notice under Customs Act was issued in June, 2013. The case was got finally adjudicated in January, 2016. The impugned order of prohibition was issued in February, 2016. In other words, for a purported misdemeanor of 2008, the prohibition was issued in February, 2016. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt of anyone on behalf of Respondent No. 1. Further respondent No. 1 was not confronted with the statement made by Mr. G S Prince. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Sanjay Kantawala, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1, there was no evidence to show that Respondent No. 1 was aware of the acts of his agent, Mr. Prince, as far as clearance of the car in question was concerned. Section 112(a) and 114 AA of the Act are penal in nature. Therefore, in the absence of some tangible material to show that 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

on is that it had failed to supervise its employees so as to thwart the illegal import of the impugned car. There was no finding, based on the evidence on record, that Respondent No. 1 was aware of the illegal import in which the G Card holder was involved. Considering that it was a question of penalty, there ought to have been some tangible material to show that Respondent No. 1 was aware of the acts of its employee / agent, Mr. Prince. As rightly pointed out, if Respondent No. 1 was found to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version