9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Customs under Regulation 9 (2) of CHALR, 2004. The appellant filed the Bill of Entry in Mumbai for clearance of goods imported by M/s. Chirag Corporation, Bhiwandi under the duty free Import Authorization sheme (DFIA). The Mumbai Customs authorities, upon investigating into the imports, detected under invoicing of goods and an offence case was booked. On completion of investigation a show cause notice dated 14.10.2014 was issued by Mumbai Customs against the importers as also the appellant. A copy of this show cause notice was forwarded by Mumbai Customs to Delhi Customs under the cover of their letter dated 01.12.2014. Upon receipt of this letter the Delhi Customs initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant under the CHALR 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs. CC Chennai 2014 (309) ELT 433 (Mad). iii) ARK Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Hyderabad 2010 (261) ELT 648 (Tr. Bang). 5. The Ld. Counsel also challenged the impugned order on merits as well as violation of principles of natural justice. He submitted that the documents based on which the alleged offence has been framed against them, have not been supplied to them either by the Mumbai Customs or by the Delhi Customs and the impugned order has been passed revoking their license even though they have repeatedly sought copies of these documents. He also challenged the impugned order on merits by submitting that the CHA cannot be held responsible for the offence of under-invoicing in as much as they have filed the relevant Bill of Entry only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.2015 cannot be held as issued beyond the time limit specified in the regulation 20. 8. In view of the above, the impugned order is required to be considered on merits and on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice. The appellant has alleged in the ground of appeal that the relied upon documents based on which show cause notice has been issued to them has not been made available to them, inspite of repeated pleas made before the adjudicating authority. In view of the above, we are of the view that the matter is required to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo decision after furnishing copies of the relevant documents based on which the case has been made against the appellant. In view of the above, we refr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
