Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (8) TMI 528 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (8) TMI 528 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Restoration of licence search - contravention of Regulation 11(j) and 11(m) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation, 2013 Held that: - It is not the case where the Appellant refused to access, or concealed, or removed or destroyed any document. It is clear that a search has been conducted and documents have been received from the Appellant. The representative of the Appellant also appeared before the investigating Officers and deposed statement .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e suspension. As such, the time limit of 90 days prescribed has already lapsed. It is held in catena of decision by High Courts and Tribunal that the time limit prescribed in CBLR, 2013 is mandatory and failure to adhere the same will make the action without jurisdiction impugned order not justified decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No. 51156 of 2016 - 52518/2016 - Dated:- 22-7-2016 - Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President and Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) For .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ar, advocate for the Appellant and Shri S.K. Sheorin along with Ms. Suchitra Sharma, ARs for the Revenue. It is clear that the licence of the Appellant was suspended on 23.02.2016 and later such suspension was confirmed by the impugned order. The perusal of the order reveals that the suspension was ordered mainly on the ground that the Appellant has contravened the provisions of Regulation 11(j) and 11(m) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation, 2013. The lower authority held that, based on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

19.11.2015. Again another summon was issued to appear on 07.12.2015. The Appellant informed the inquiry Officers that due to medical reasons he could not travel to Ahmedabad. Thereafter, on 09.02.2016, Shri Sanjeev Maggu of the Appellant s company appeared before the Officers and gave a statement voluntarily. The allegation against the Appellant is that, they have not produced the documents with reference to imports made by two importers for investigation. It is the case of the Appellant that a .....

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 order on two grounds; (a) Regulation 11(j) & (m) were not violated by them, and (b) the suspension ordered on 23.02.2016 has not been followed by action under Regulation 20 within a period of 90 days of receipt of offence report. Till date, they have not got any notice under Regulation 20. 4. We find a strong force in the plea of the Appellant on both the grounds. Firstly, Regulation 11(j) reads as under : A Customs Broker shall not refuse access to, conceal, remove or destroy the whole .....

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