Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (2) TMI 1138

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... labeling is not established. Similarly, the other serious offences alleged has also found to be not established - Regarding the original authority going beyond the scope of the allegation as contented by appellant, we note that the provisions of Regulation 11 (d) are very generic and a portion of the acts of the appellant was found to be violating such obligation. We find no infirmity in the findings recorded in the original order to the effect that such infringement will attract penal action. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - C/51590/2017-CU[DB] - A/50267/2018-CU[DB] - Dated:- 9-1-2018 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Present for the Appellant: Mr. G.S. Arora, Adv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... egulation 11 (d) and accordingly, rendered themselves for penal consequences in terms of Regulation 20 read with Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2013. The Enquiry Authority recommended penal action including revocation of license, forfeitures of whole of security and imposition of penalty as proposed in the show cause notice. The appellants presented their side of the case before the original authority. The matter was adjudicated resulting in the impugned order. The original authority after detailed examination of the enquiry report and the submissions made by the appellants held that the violations of CBLR by the appellants are not serious enough to lead to revocation of license. However, he found that the appellants did violate the provisions of C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (d) on the ground that the appellant in connivance with the importer misdeclared the MRP of the imported goods. The Original Authority held that the said allegation is not established. However, he went beyond the said allegation to hold that the appellant did not obtain permission of the competent authority for affixing stickers before clearance of consignments imported by M/s.Sona Enterprises. He held that appellant did not advise the importer properly in this regard. This, the ld. Counsel submits, is beyond the scope of allegations made in the show cause notice. Relying on certain decided cases, the ld. Counsel submitted the whole impugned order is without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice. 7. The ld. AR c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ffence report prior to the issue of show cause notice for customs proceeding by DRI, which is on 09.09.2016 (received by the Office of the Original Authority on 05.10.2016). All the proceedings thereafter were the time limit prescribed under CBLR. He submitted that the statutory time limit mentioned in CBLR has been followed in the present proceedings and on this ground, there could be no grievance on the part of the appellant. 9. We have heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 10. Regarding the limitation of time periods for CBLR proceedings applicable to the present appeal, we note, there is no offence report received by the licensing authority prior to the issue of show cause notice by the DRI, which is received on 05.10.2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t, the allegation made against the appellant with reference to connivance with the importer regarding non-adherence of MRP labeling is not established. Similarly, the other serious offences alleged has also found to be not established. However, as recorded in para 36 of the impugned order, which actually on merit cannot be contested, resulted in the imposition of penalty. The violation as recorded in para 36 will fall in the overall ambit of the obligations on the part of customs broker in terms of Regulation 11 (d). Allegation of violation of such Regulation has been made in the show cause notice and due opportunity has been given to defend in the enquiry proceedings, which resulted in the enquiry report also. A further opportunity has bee .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates