TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 962X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicating authority that no authorisation was produced or obtained by the appellant. Even during the proceedings before this Bench also no such authorisation from the exporter M/s. Bhadrakalj Exporters Pvt. Ltd. Nepal was produced. Further as per Regulation 11 (n), CHA is required to advise his client to comply with the provisions of Customs Act which will include transit routes required to be followed by the client. Ld. Advocate during the course of hearing submitted that the said CTD transit declaration was received by the appellant on 3/4/2014 and interception was done on 7/4/2014. Once the appellant came to know of CTD transit declaration on 3/4/2014, then it was his responsibility and duty to guide the driver of the truck/Nepal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sri Somen Bose, Advocate P.D. Roy, Consultant, FOR APPELLANT(S) Sri K.C. Jena, Addl. Commr. (A.R.), FOR THE RESPONDENT(S) Per SHRI H.K. THAKUR This appeal has been filed filed by the appellant against Order-in-Original No. KOL/CUS/AIRPORT/ADMN/19/2015 dated 28/05/2015 issued on 1/6/2015 by Commr. of Customs (Airport Admn.), Customs House, Kolkata as adjudicating authority. In this Order-in-Original dated 28/5/2015, adjudicating authority has revoked CHA licence No. B-79 of the appellant under Regulation 18 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation 2013 (CBLR 2013). The Adjudicating authority has also forfeited the whole of security deposit of the appellant lying with the Department. 2. Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the said container was stuffed with 'Red sander woods' and cannot be held responsible for any negligence. That Nepalese Exporter M/s. Bhadrakali Export Pvt. Ltd., Nepal never came forward during the investigation before DRI. That appellant CHA duly down loaded the Pan No.601377642 of the exporter from the Website which was a sufficient precaution to be taken while verifying the antecedents of the client. Ld. Advocate made the Bench go through a copy of the PAN No. 601377642 of the exporter at page 213 of the appeal memorandum. That Adjudicating authority has wrongly held in his Order-in-Original dated 28/5/2015 that appellant has violated the provisions of Regulation 11 (a), 11 (d) and 11 (n) of CBLR, 2013. Ld. Advocate also re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the client regarding various provisions of the Customs Act and the procedures required to be followed. That no letter of authorization was obtained by the CHA from the Nepal exporter which is a mandatory requirement under Regulation 11 (a) of CBLR 2013. 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in the present proceedings is whether adjudicating authority has correctly revoked the CHA Licence of the appellant. It is observed that the said revocation has been made for violating the provisions of Regulation 11 (a), 11 (d) and 11 (n) of CBLR, 2013. As per the provisions of Regulation 11 (a) of CBLR, 2013 every CHA (Customs broker) shall obtain an authorisation from each of his clients whom he is being employed an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ohibited Red Sanders Wood became possible in the container. In view of the above observations, we do not find anything wrong in the order dated 28/5/2015 passed by the adjudicating authority in revoking CHA licence of the appellant. Accordingly, Order-in-Original dated 28/5/15 passed by the Adjudicating authority is upheld on merits. 6. Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant relied upon an order dated 9/12/15 passed by this Bench in the case of M/S. Shubham Enterprises Vs. C.C. (Airport Admn., Kolkata) (Supra). It is observed from this case law that on merits the order passed by the adjudicating authority was also upheld in the relied upon case. However, revocation period was restricted upto a certain date on the grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
