9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter referred to as an "CHA") by one M/s Vision Minerals and Energy in respect of a consignment which it intended to export to Indonesia. It was alleged by the Customs Authorities that the shipping bills describe the goods as "OWC Drilling Chemical Additive" whereas the goods were in fact Potassium Chloride (Muriate of Potash) of fertilizer grade which was restricted by the Director General of Foreign Trade. A show cause notice dated 09.04.2010 was issued to the exporter and others including the appellant under Section 124 of the Customs Act. As far as the appellant is concerned, the show cause notice called upon him to show cause as to why action should not be initiated for cancellation of his CHA License under the CHA Licensing Regulation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat he had violated the provisions of Regulations 13(d), (e), (f) & (n) of the Regulations. The appellant's contention that he had already been adjudicated in respect of the same transaction was repelled on the ground that outcome of the proceedings under the Customs Act and the Regulations were different and independent of each other. The Commissioner directed that the security deposit of Rs.75000/- furnished by the appellant be forfeited. The appellant's appeal against this order was dismissed an order of the Tribunal dated 24.11.2017. 5. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the said order 24.11.2017. The appeal was admitted by an order of this Court dated 17.07.2018 and the following question of law was framed:- " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the order in original dated 24.04.2015 passed pursuant thereto, in fact specifically notices that the appellant had been visited with a penalty under the first show cause notice. The first order having being set aside by the Tribunal, on the ground that no specific contravention of the Act had been alleged or established against the appellant, it is difficult to see how the Revenue could sustain an entirely inconsistent order in respect of the second show cause notice. The provisions of the Regulations which have been invoked against the appellant contemplate non-compliance with the provisions of the Act by the client of the CHA and regulates the relationship between the CHA and his client. Seen in the light of these facts, the contenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
