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

2016 (8) TMI 304 - CESTAT KOLKATA

2016 (8) TMI 304 - CESTAT KOLKATA - TMI - Revocation of CHA licence forfeiture of whole security deposit held by the department authorization from the exporter was not obtained by the appellant - Held that: - Regulation 13(a) A Custom House Agent shall obtain an authorization from each of the companies, firms or individuals by whom he is for the time being employed as Customs House Agent and produce such authorization whenever required by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eal allowed decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. CA-75411/15 - ORDER NO.FO/A/75736/2016 - Dated:- 1-8-2016 - Shri H. K. Thakur, Member(Technical) And Shri P. K. Choudhary, Member(Judicial) Shri Arijit Chakraborty, Advocate & Shri B.N.Chattopadhyay, Consultant for the Appellant Shri K.C.Jena, ADC(AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Shri H. K. Thakur This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant against Order-in-Original No.KOL/CUS/AIRPORT/ADMN/03/2015 dated 22.01.2015 passed by Comm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lf of the appellant. Shri Arijit Chakraborty argued that the CHA work of Shipping Bill No.5616903 dated 08.04.2010 was taken by the Appellant. That as per the documents the consignment was declared as Mica Powder . That by a letter dated 12.04.2010 Appellant informed the Customs department that according to the information gathered by them the cargo could be mis-declared and it was requested that re-examination of the cargo may be done as the mis-declared goods were not found during customs exam .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

04 for producing no proof of obtaining authorization from the exporter. Learned Advocate made the Bench go through a letter dated 06.04.2010 from the exporter M/s.Satya Narayan Impex (P) Ltd., Giridih 815301 authorising his client as CHA to handle export consignment of Mica Powder . That in the entire investigation it was never admitted by the CHA that such authorization was not available with his client. That a copy of the authorization was enclosed with their reply to the show cause notice dat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed 06.04.2010 was not available with his client. 3. Shri K.C. Jena, ADC(AR) appearing for the Revenue argued that no authorization from the exporter was obtained by the appellant as the same was not produced before the investigating agency or the Enquiry Officer appointed under CHALR 2004. That the authorization letter dated 06.04.2010 is only a forged document, obtained afterwards while submitting reply to the show cause notice, as a cover up. Learned AR strongly defended the Adjudicating order .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ch authorization whenever required by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs. 4.1 As per the above Regulation a CHA was required to obtain an authorization from the exporter for whom he was working. Appellant argued that the said authorization dated 06.04.2010 was available with them but could not be produced during the investigation. It is observed from reply dated 29.05.2013 to the show cause notice that appellant not only made a submission to that effect in pa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d nature of authorization dated 06.04.2010 when Order-in-Original dated 22.01.2015 was issued after more than 1 = years from appellant s reply dated 29.05.2013. It is also observed from the statement dated 21.04.2010 of Shri S.Biswas, Partner of the appellant that it is no where stated that the said authorization was not obtained from the exporter. Revenue is thus not able to establish that authorization dated 06.04.2010 was not existing with the appellant. 5. It is not the case of the Revenue t .....

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