TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (k) of the CBLR, 2013. The Inquiry Officer has in fact clearly stated that he has not found anything substantial that can merit proposing revoking the license of the appellant or imposing the penalty. The Inquiry Officer has categorically reported that at the most, appellant may be given a strict warning. This Tribunal in the case of Parekh Cargo Logistics [2016 (11) TMI 339 - CESTAT MUMBAI] has held that it cannot be a ground for revocation of CHA broker license which results in denial of right to livelihood. But in the instant case, even such an infraction is not forthcoming. Revocation of License and forfeiture of deposit is not warranted - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. C/41485/2016 - Final Order No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seized the goods and proceeded to conduct the investigation. Hence, the Customs Broker cannot be charged with any act of commission or omission since in the investigated case, no act of commission or omission resulting in filing any false or incorrect declarations or documents was committed or charged to have been committed. ii. Secondly, the show cause notice had pre-concluded the issue in para 10 thereof and had only proposed the imposition of the penalties under Regulation 18 which is contrary to the settled principles of law. iii. The Commissioner failed to see that neither the DRI nor the show cause notice issued to them alleged that they had any knowledge or intention in the import through concealment. The Commissioner also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsignment but also in previous consignment relating to the same import. 4. Heard both sides. From the facts on record, we find that DRI had intercepted the consignment covered under Bill of Lading dt. 29.09.2015 imported by M/s.Prince Traders even before filing of Bill of Entry. This aspect has been taken note of in the Inquiry Report dt. 08.04.2016 pursuant to proceedings under Regulation 20 of the CBLR, 2013. The important take aways from this Inquiry Report are summarized as follows : (i) Ace Global Logistics (appellant) neither received any documents from Prince Traders nor filed any Bill of Entry directly themselves. (ii) The fraudulent transaction, if any, is said to have transpired between another customs brokerage firm M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or giving a strict warning to them. 5. However, in the impugned order, the adjudicating authority has chosen to disregard all these findings and conclusions of the Inquiry Officer. The adjudicating authority has argued that though the Bill of Entry was not filed by appellant, they had filed check list with Customs EDI for the said consignment. The adjudicating authority has taken a contrary view that notwithstanding the nascent stage of investigation, appellant has very much violated Regulation of CBLR, 2013 and on that basis ordered revocation of the license and forfeiture of security deposit. 6. We are unable to appreciate such a peremptory conclusion. The CBLR 2013 lays down that stepwise procedures are to be followed before order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
