Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s LEO Cargo Services Versus CC, New Delhi

2016 (8) TMI 528 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

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 under Section 108. The strong allegation of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 Appellant : Sh. Piyush Kumar Adv. For Respon .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 the report received from ADG, DRI, Ahmedabad .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 search was conducted in the premises of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 or any part of any book, paper or other reco .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version