TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity in the export/ import consignments. The goods imported were put to first check examination and the importer very well exists. Similarly the export consignment was received in a sealed container duly examined & certified by the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities. The exporter is also existing. Bills of entry & shipping bill were filed by the appellants based on the documents furnished by the importer / exporter. If there was any irregularity in the documents then the same was also available before the assessing officers and the Customs examining officer. If the same could not be detected by the appellant the same also could not be detected by departmental assessing/ examining officers. There is no evidence on record that appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant. 2. Dr. Samir Chakraborty (Sr. Advocate), Sh. Abhijit Biswas (Advocate) and Sh. Arnab Chakraborty (Advocate) appeared for hearing for the appellants. Learned senior Advocate submitted that appellant M/s Prince International approached the appellant in 2010 for clearance of following goods containing shoes, batteries, wooden beads strips for clearance through the Customs:- Container No. Bill of Lading No w/date Invoice No. w/date Bill of Entry dated TGHU 62667220 SCCU 1010345 Dt. 20.01.2011 AST 090409 dt. 5.1.2011 N/A TGKU 6266799 S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show cause notice dt 29/9/2011 was issued, interalia, to the appellant and a penalty of ₹ 10 lakh was imposed upon the appellant under OIO dt 8/8/2013 against which appellant appealed separately. 2.2. That by on Establishment order No. 260/2011 dated 16/9/2011 appellant s CHA license was suspended by the Adjudicating authority which was subsequently revoked by the same authority as per order-in-original No. KOL/CUS/AIRPORT/ADMN/9/2011 dated 3/11/11 but in the same order it was ordered to initiate revocation proceedings against the appellant as per Regulation 20(1) 22 of the CHALR That a DC Customs was appointed as an enquiry officer who vide his Inquiry Report dt 9/12/13 completely absolved the appellant. That thereafter by OIO N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id not take sufficient steps as pointed out in letter dated 7/7/2014 giving the reasons on points of difference from the report of Inquiry officer. That Adjudicating authority under OIO dated 21/1/2015 has given detailed findings held that appellant has violated Regulation- 13 (a), 13 (d) 13 (o) of CHALR. That the said order dt 21/1/15 is well reasoned correct. Learned AR strongly defended the order dt 21/1/15 passed by the Adjudicating authority. 5. Heard both sides perused the case records. The issue involved in these proceedings is whether Adjudicating authority is justified in revoking the CHA license of the appellant under Regulation 20 (1) for not discharging the obligations under Regulation- 13 (a), (d) (o) of CHALR. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regularity in the documents then the same was also available before the assessing officers and the Customs examining officer. If the same could not be detected by the appellant the same also could not be detected by departmental assessing/ examining officers. There is no evidence on record that appellant came to know of any irregularity before the same were detected by the department or that he did not advise the concerned clients. Appellant was also exonerated by the departmental inquiry officer. It is also observed that the points of difference from the Inquiry report are not so glaring to justify revocation of CHA license as held by the Adjudicating authority. The whole spirit of obligation of the CHA under the CHALR is to establish the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
