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 Skyways Air Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus CC (I&G) , New Delhi

2016 (8) TMI 1073 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Revocation of registration - Held that:- Registration was revoked alongwith forfeiture of ₹ 10,00,000/- security deposit, is that they are not "authorized courier" as per Regulation 3 (a) of CIER, 1998/Regulation 3 (1) (b) of CIER, 2010. We note that both these are definition clause of "authorized courier". We note that the registration in 2009 has been granted by the Competent Authority, apparently after due process. The review of the registration has been done prompted by guidelines 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

n provision of law. The same is not demonstrated in the present case. Regarding revocation of registration, we find the action of the lower Authority is preemptive though aimed at enforcing certain revised guidelines for improved monitoring and better compliance of cargo movement across the border. We find that taking into consideration the submissions made by the appellant and also the fact that they are yet to commence the operation that and are pleading the financial difficulty as a reason fo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ichandran, Member (Technical) Shri Prabhat Kumar, Advocate- for the appellant. Shri Dr. S.K. Sheoran, Authorized Representative (DR) - for the Respondent. ORDER The appeal is against order dated 23/2/2016 of Commissioner of Customs (General), New Custom House, New Delhi. The appellant is a registered authorized courier, essentially engaged in the business of freight forwarding as an IATA agent. They have applied for and obtained registration as i authorized courier' in 2009 in terms of Regul .....

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 ensure proper compliance. On noticing that the appellant has not furnished bank certificate or solvency certificate worth ₹ 25,00,000/- in view of the amendment in the Regulation 8 (1) of CIER, 1998 w.e.f. 12/8/2010, proceedings were initiated against the appellant by way of issue of show cause notice dated 15/6/2015 proposing revocation of registration and forfeiture of security deposit. On conclusion of the adjudication proceedings the impugned order was passed. Though the show cause .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

enal action. Accordingly, the Original Authority revoked the appellants courier registration and also ordered forfeiture the whole amount of security deposit of ₹ 10,00,000/- 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellants have not committed any violation of the Regulations CIER, 1998 or CIER, 2010, He submitted that as per the amended provisions of the Regulation they have complied with requirement of furnishing bank guarantee and also solvency certificate. This has .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

yet to complete the process as the same is capital intensive and required investment in IT infrastructure and various other office facilities. He pleaded that when it is an admitted fact that they have not filed any courier bill for clearance of import or export cargo so far, the question of their contravening any of above-mentioned Regulations do not arise. When asked specifically as to why they are not able to put up the upgraded infrastructure facilities the learned Counsel submitted that 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

correct and reviewing the facilities available with the authorized courier and when found wanting he has taken action of revocation. 4. Having heard both the sides and on perusal of appeal records, we find that the only substantial allegation against the appellant based on which their registration was revoked alongwith forfeiture of ₹ 10,00,000/- security deposit, is that they are not "authorized courier" as per Regulation 3 (a) of CIER, 1998/Regulation 3 (1) (b) of CIER, 2010. .....

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