TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Held that:- The perennial litigations from 2009 in the attempt at enforcing the punitive provisions under the CHALR, 2014 against the petitioner is a classic case of cat and mouse game between the Department and petitioner that is nobody's cause. A cursory reading of regulations 13 and 21 indicates that the prohibition contemplated under Regulation 21 is aimed at separating the CHA from access to offices and sections connected to the offence to prevent unwanted influence or sabotage - This order is normally passed immediately after the commission of any offence. In other words, Regulation 21 will outlive its purpose once substantive investigations in the offence case is over. The consequences of wrong doing for a CHA licensee is in the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion in the bill of entry was signed by the Importer. DRI finds that the original invoice with higher value was communicated by the Manager, I Tech Imports Exports to one Mr.Ganesh, a holder of H Card of the petitioner's firm through E-Mail and therefore, the petitioners are in the know of the fraud committed by the Importer. Mr. Ganesh, in his statement had denied seeing the mail and feign ignorance of the alleged undervaluation. In the aforementioned situations, the petitioner resists vicarious liability in the proceedings before various forum including in the Writ Petition. 3.The case was adjudicated upon and a total penalty of ₹ 3 lakhs was imposed on the petitioner on the charge of abetment. On appeal before the first ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der, the Superintendent (CHA) issued a notice of personal hearing dated 19.12.2012. In response, the petitioner sought cross examination of certain persons to defend their case. They had also mentioned to the 1st respondent that the parent commissionerate at Chennai had issued Show cause notice dated 12.11.2012 to the petitioners proposing to revoke the licence on the same issue. The petitioners had requested the 1st respondent to keep the prohibition proceedings in abeyance until the Show Cause notice dated 12.11.2012 is adjudicated. 7.The respondents submit that the impugned communication dated 01.01.2013 is not at all an order and is only an intimation letter sent to the Writ Petitioner calling them to appear for personal hearing on 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner. In Order dated 15.10.2012 in WP.No.12046 of 2012, this court had set aside the prohibition order on the grounds of not following the principles of natural justice. Therefore, it is not correct on the part of the respondents to say the opportunity to cross examine need not be given in the proceedings under Regulation 21 of CHALR, 2014. 10.The perennial litigations from 2009 in the attempt at enforcing the punitive provisions under the CHALR, 2014 against the petitioner is a classic case of cat and mouse game between the Department and petitioner that is nobody's cause. A cursory reading of regulations 13 and 21 indicates that the prohibition contemplated under Regulation 21 is aimed at separating the CHA from access to offices an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
