9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner M/s A.M.Ahamed & Co are Custom House Agents. They had filed bills of entry for clearance of injection module machines, surface grinders and milling machines during 2009 on behalf of the importers M/s.I Tech Imports & Exports, Chennai. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) booked the importer on charge of undervaluation of the consignments and arrayed the petitioner as abettor in the case under the Customs Act. The petitioner submits that the declaration 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to work in Tuticorin Customs Commissionerate with immediate effect under Regulation 21 of the CHALR, 2004, allegedly on the same issue that is pending adjudication before the CESTAT. As the principles of natural justice was not followed in issuing the order, the petitioner got relief from this Hon'ble court in order dated 15.10.2012 in WP(MD)No.12046 of 2012. The prohibition order was set aside by this Court. 6.In furtherance of the above order, 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 dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had moved settlement commission and obtained certain relief. And some submissions are made on the merits of the petitioner on the original case. The petitioners case is pending before the CESTAT from 2011 and therefore CESTAT will be the right body to consider the submission on merits. Two Writ petitions came to be filed against the parallel proceedings initiated under the CHALR, 2014 and this court was pleased to grant relief to the petitioner. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
