TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant to produce any additional evidence to support his case. - Stay Application No. : C/Stay/20800/2017, Appeal (s) Involved : C/21636/2017-DB - Final Order No. 20404/2018 - Dated:- 13-3-2018 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Shri A.K Jayaraj, Advocate- For the Appellant Shri Pakshirajan. Asst. Commissioner(AR)- For the Respondent Order Per : V. Padmanabhan The present appeal has been filed against the Order of Prohibition dt. 13/11/2017 issued in terms of Regulation 23 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR, 2013, for short). The appellant was the holder of regular Customs Broker Licence valid up to 22/04/2018, issued by the Commissioner of Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... connection, he referred to several Bills of Entry filed by the appellant for M/s. Shaktiksha Exports as well as M/s. Trendy Knitz and submitted that the Shipping Bills filed by the appellants were not for leather items but 100% silk scarves. He argued that the Commissioner of Customs has blindly ordered prohibition without appreciating the role, if any, played by the appellant. ii. He submitted that after the Order of Prohibition dt. 13/11/2017, no further steps have been taken by the Customs authorities for proceeding against the appellant under the CBLR. For revocation of licence, a show-cause notice is required to be issued to the Customs Broker within a period of 3 months from the date of enquiry report under CBLR 2013. No such show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nocence ii. By referring to the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, he argued that since the Customs Broker has admittedly violated some of the regulations of CBLR, the Tribunal should allow the Commissioner of Customs, to complete the proceedings under CBLR 2013 and cannot interfere with the prohibition order at this time. 5. We Heard both sides and perused records. 6. The challenge in the present appeal is against the Order of Prohibition Issued by Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore under Regulation 23 of CBLR, 2013. The order appears to have been issued on the basis of the Investigation Report received from DRI, Bangalore. The appellant being licensed by the Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad, the Commissioner of Cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n violations of CBLR 2013 are evident on the part of the appellant and hence we do not think it is necessary to interfere with the prohibition order impugned in the present proceedings. However, by following the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, we grant liberty to the appellant to approach the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore for a post-decisional hearing and for submitting any evidence relevant to prove his innocence. 9. Without setting aside the Order of Prohibition, we dispose of the appeal with the direction to the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore to reconsider his decision after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant to produce any additional evidence to support his case. 10. In the result, appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
