Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2018 (4) TMI 786

ation 11(a), (d), (e), (n) as well as Regulation 17(9) - Held that: - the contravention of Regulation 11(a), (d), (e), (n) as well as Regulation 17(9) stands established against the appellant. - Keeping in view the Principle of Proportionality, the revocation of CB licence is to harsh a penalty to be imposed on the appellant. The ends of justice will be met by ordering forfeiture of the whole amount of security deposit of ₹ 75,000/- furnished by them. In addition, a penalty of ₹ 50,000/- imposed on the appellant. - Appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. C/51832/2017 - Final Order No.51329/2018 - Dated:- 12-4-2018 - Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Mr V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri Sanjeev Kuma .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ell as Shri R.K. Manjhi, ld DR. The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant are summarized below: i) The proceedings initiated vide SCN dated 03.03.2015 are hit by time bar in as much as the same has not been issued within 90 days from the date of the Offence Report i.e. 01.11.2014. He further alleged that the date of the Offence Report has been wrongly stated as received on 09.12.2014. The SCN was received by the appellant only on 14.03.2015 whereas the date of the letter issued by the Commissioner Customs is 01.11.2014. ii) On merit, he submitted that the allegations made against the appellant are mainly on three grounds: a. The CHA has acted without proper authorisation from the importer; b. CHA has failed to verify the KYC documen .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

dered and decided in favour of Revenue by the Tribunal. Consequently, we decline to reopen the same ground during these proceedings. 7. We have also considered the submissions made by both sides on merits. We discuss below the various charges alleged against the appellant for which the CB licence was ordered for revocation: a) Violation of Regulation 11(a) The CB is required to obtain authorisation from the importer on whose behalf the documents are being filed with Custom Department. The appellant s operations in Bombay were handled by Ashok Bharsiwal Tiwari, employee of the appellant and G. card holder. He also held the Power of Attorney on behalf of the appellant. The Bills of Entry have been filed in Bombay on behalf of M/s Chirag Corpo .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

proved against the appellant . (c )Violation of Regulation 11(e) and 11(n) Regulation 11(e) requires the CB to exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of information which he imparts to a client. Further, 11(n) requires the CB to verify the antecedents, correctness of IEC No. and identity of the client as well as his address. The investigation has established that the appellant had failed to comply with both the above regulations. It is seen from record that the CB has facilitated the importer to misdeclare the goods so as to fraudulently avail the benefit of DFIA licence. Further, it is found that CB did not verify the antecedents, correctness of IEC, identity of the client as well his functioning at the declared address. The .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||