TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued by the DRI officer who was not competent to issue the notice under the Customs Act - the main noticee had already accepted and acted upon the purported show cause notice and had settled the case before the Settlement Commission as narrated in detail in the order of the Tribunal. The main noticee has already acted upon the notice and in such circumstances the plea of the appellant herein who is a co-noticee has no substance - application for restoration of appeal dismissed. - MA (ROA)-76119/17 (in Cus.Appl. No.75649/14) - M/O/75553/2018 - Dated:- 5-3-2018 - SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri S.P.Siddhanta, Shri P.D.Roy, both Consultant for the Applicant Shri S.N.Mitra, Asstt. Commr. (A.R.) for the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he imported goods on high sea sale basis to M/s Asha Soap Factory. The goods were cleared on concessional rate of duty. It was found that M/s JVL diverted the goods in the open market in violation of the conditions of the exemption Notification. 4. M/s JVL and its directors settled the matter before the Ld. Settlement Commission, Kolkata on payment of duty alongwith interest and penalty. By the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs (Port) decided the case of the other co-noticees including the appellant herein. For the proper appreciation of the case, in respect of imposition of penalty on the appellant, the finding of the Adjudicating Authority is reproduced below:- 16 As regards the role of M/s Soma Clearing Agents Pvt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the appellant was involved in the offense. The appellant in their grounds of appeal cited several case laws. In my considered view, the appellant cannot shirk its responsibility in respenct of offence committed by M/s JVL. Therefore, the imposition of penalty on the appellant is justified. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. 5. The ld. Counsel submitted that the appellant is a Customs House Agent (CHA) and the matter should be heard by a Division Bench of the Tribunal as per the instructions Circular dated 18.11.2013, as issued by the Registrar, CESTAT. On perusal of the circular, I find that the circular is pertaining to all matters regarding Clearing agents and CHAs and shall be heard by a Division Bench. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
