TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 922X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ker and requires a stricter scrutiny. In the instant case, the petitioner had failed to qualify the requirements of the CBLR, 2013 to claim right of appearance for the examination for G Card - Petition dismissed. - W.P(MD)Nos.17801 and 17802 of 2014 And MP(MD)Nos.1 and 1 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 29-11-2018 - Mrs. Justice J. Nisha Banu For the Petitioner : Ms.R.Hemalatha for Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan For the Respondents : Mr.S.Gurumoorthy COMMON ORDER WP(MD)No.17801 of 2014:- Prayer : To issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to impugned order dated 29.10.2014 issued in C.No.VIII/13/26/2014-CBLR confirming the Order dated 28.10.2014 issued in C.No.VIII/13/26/2014-CBLR by the 2nd Respondent and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent vide the impugned letter dated 29.10.2014 received by the petitioner on 31.10.2014. Challenging the above orders, the petitioner Shri Muthu Arul Selvan has filed W.P(MD)No.17801/14 and W.P(MD)No. 17802/14 has been filed by M/s.Villavarayar Son, Represented by its Partner, Mr.Pinto Villavarayar, to direct the 3rd respondent to send the signature of Shri.P.Arul Asir Rajanayagam, Superintendent as appearing in the bill of entry no.9602856 dated 18.3.2014 for reverification to another independent expert. As the prayer in both the writ petitions are interlinked, both the writ petitions are heard together. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the impugned orders were passed without following the principles of natural just ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... him about the discrepancy in the BOE and subsequent manual correction. It is averred on behalf of the petitioner that Shri.Pinto Villavarayar had requested the Department to send the document for re-verification of signature with some other agency and he filed WP(MD)No.17802 of 2014. It was pleaded by the petitioner that there was no revenue loss and therefore the errors/discrepancies in the Bill of Entry happened inadvertent. 5. The respondents resisted the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice. In support of the defence, they point to the detailed written explanation provided by the petitioner in the enquiry relating to the refund claim arising out of the discrepancies in the subject BOE. The petitioner had also admi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e documents. The petitioner had participated in the enquiry regarding the manual amendment of the subject BOE and filed a detailed explanation wherein, he had admitted his involvement in manually amending the Bill of Entry without authority of law and in violation of Notification No.40/2012-Customs dated 02.05.2012. Therefore, the plea of Principles of Natural Justice is not tenable and also there is no reason to doubt that CFSL, at Hyderabad had given a wrong report. CFSL, Hyderabad is one of the leading Forensic Laboratories that tests and certifies forgeries of all profiles and therefore sending the signature of Shri.P.Arul Asir Rajanayagam for re-verification to some other agency does not arise. 8. The petitioner had categorically ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it is clear that the person employed with the Customs Broker is required to be free of any adverse reports. The past antecedents for the suitability of issue of H Card is a mandatory requirement of work on employment with Customs Broker. Needless to say, G Card carries more responsibilities like signing the documents on behalf of the importer and Customs Broker and requires a stricter scrutiny. In the instant case, the petitioner had failed to qualify the requirements of the CBLR, 2013 to claim right of appearance for the examination for G Card. As discussed earlier, no ground is made out for sending the signature of Shri.P.Arul Asir Rajanayagam for re-verification to some other agency. In view of the above discussion, both the Writ Pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
