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

2016 (9) TMI 1164 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (9) TMI 1164 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Revocation of CHA license - forfeiture of security deposit - smuggling of R-22 gas - Regulation 22 of the CBLR, 2003 - time limits prescribed under CBLR of 90 days prescribed for submission of the enquiry report after the issue of show cause notice - contravention of CBLR - Held that: - the decision in the case A.M. Ahamed & Co. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennai [2014 (9) TMI 237 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] is relied upon where it was held that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

8.10.2014. The inquiry report which is mandated to be completed within ninety days from the date of the show cause notice has been filed only on 11.03.2015, very much beyond the ninety days time limit prescribed for the same. - The order of the lower authority issued without adhering to the time schedule liable to be set aside - revocation of license and forfeiture of security not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/53120/2015-CU [DB] - Final Order No. 53222/2016 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. The case of smuggling of R-22 gas was investigated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence against M/s. AMP Enterprises, Delhi. It was found by DRI that the Customs broker, the present appellant was involved and the DRI got detention order issued under cofe-posa on 16.04.2014. The DRI in turn intimated the Commissioner in this regard vide their letter dated 13.08.2014. The CHA licence of the appellant was immediately suspended through the order dated 29.08.2014 and the suspension was confir .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

under CHALR. On merit the appellant has denied the allegation of contravention of CHALR. 4. Heard Shri Piyush Kumar, Id. Counsel for the appellant as well as Shri Poddar, Id. D.R. 5. The Id. Counsel argued that Id. Commissioner has failed to observe the time limits prescribed in CHALR inasmuch as the time limit of 90 days prescribed for submission of the enquiry report after the issue of show cause notice as has not been observed. 6. The Id. D.R. on the other hand, fairly conceded that the time .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ms House Agent within ninety days from the date of receipt of offence report, stating the grounds on which it is proposed to suspend or revoke the licence and requiring the said Customs House Agent to submit within thirty days to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs nominated by him, a written statement of defence and also to specify in the said statement whether the Customs House Agent desires to be heard in person by the said Deputy Commissioner of Customs or .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

quire into the grounds which are not admitted by the Customs House Agent. (3) The Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs shall, in the course of inquiry, consider such documentary evidence and take such oral evidence as may be relevant or material to the inquiry in regard to the grounds forming the basis of the proceedings, and he may also put any question to any person tendering evidence for or against the Customs House Agent, for the purpose of ascertaining the cor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

shall prepare a report of the inquiry recording his findings and submit his report within ninety days from the date of issue of a notice under sub-regulation (1). (6) The Commissioner of Customs shall furnish to the Customs House Agent a copy of the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, and shall require the Customs House Agent to submit, within the specified period not being less than thirty days, any representation that he may wish to make against .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

der passed under regulation 20 or sub-regulation (7) of regulation 22, may prefer an appeal under Section 129A of the Act to the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal established under sub-section (1) of Section 129 of the Act." 8. The CHALR 2004 were replaced with Customs Broker's Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR 2013) 9. The time schedules prescribed under these Regulations during the relevant period are as follows: CHALR, 2004 CBLR, 2013 Purpose Specified Time P .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

spelt out in the regulation, the same will have to be inferred from the circumstances of the case. From the records we find that the licensing authority namely the Commissioner of Customs (Import & General) has been apprised of the matter by the DRI on 13.08/2014. This may be practically considered as the offence report. The show cause notice proposing revocation has been issued on 28.10.2014. The inquiry report which is mandated to be completed within ninety days from the date of the show .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rious portions of the Regulations. Regulation 20(2), for instance, entitles the Commissioner, to suspend the licence of an agent, in appropriate cases where immediate action is necessary. Regulation 22 (3) prescribes a time limit of 15 days, Regulation 22(1) prescribes a time limit within which action is to be initiated. It also prescribes the time limit under Regulation 22 (5). Therefore, considering the fact that the whole proceedings are to be commenced within a time limit and also concluded .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2013 in Saro International Freight Systems vs, Commissioner of Customs, Chennai reported in 2015 - TIOL - 2916 - HC- MAD - CUS. The Hon'ble High Court in para 28 of the above judgment has held as follows: 28. .…………… It is pertinent to mention here that the CBLR, 2013 have replaced the CHA Regulations. The CHA regulations did not have any time limit to complete the proceedings. Therefore, by a Circular 09/2010 dated 84.2010, the necessary to include a time l .....

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