TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 888X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant, we are of the view that the matter needs to be remanded to the adjudicating authority to pass denovo orders after extending an opportunity for cross-examination of Mr. Abid Ali as well as Mr. Maswood Ahmed - Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Cus. Appeal No.77756/18 - FO/A/75073/2019 - Dated:- 7-1-2019 - SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And SHRI V. PADMANABHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Arijit Chakraborty, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri S. K. Naskar, Asstt. Commr. (AR) for the Revenue ORDER Per Bench : The present appeal is against the Order-in-Original No.Kol/Cus/Airport/Admn/13/2018 dated 19.06.2018, in which the Licensing Authority i.e. Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata, has revoked the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he show-cause notice on several persons including the appellant. (iii) Considering the above show-cause notice issued by DRI as the Offence Report, the Licensing Authority initiated proceedings against the Customs Broker for revocation of their licence by issue of show-cause notice dated 22.12.2017. Enquiry Officer, who was appointed by the Licensing Authority to look into the allegation of violation of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, concluded the enquiry and submitted the report on 13.03.2018. After considering the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and extending the personal hearing to the appellant and also considering their reply to the notice, the Licensing Authority i.e. Commissioner of Customs, passed the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... li in his statement has submitted that he did not enjoy authorization from M/s M.A. Traders. In this regard, he submitted that the appellant has not obtained the authorization from the importer, M/s M.A. Traders, but was operating on the basis of claim made by the Abid Ali being authorized signatory. (iii) The ld.Advocate further submitted that there were serious discrepancies in the statements given by Mr.Abid Ali as well as Mr.Maswood Ahmed before the Investigating Officer. Mr.Maswood Ahmed has claimed that he did not authorize any one to import in the name of his firm. However, Mr.Abid Ali had claimed that he was representing M/s M.A. Traders. In this connection, they had made the plea before the Inquiry Officer to permit cross- exami ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Licensing Authority. He submitted that the appellant has contravened the various Regulations of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 as has been recorded in detail by the Inquiry Authority as well as the ld.Commissioner. Mr. Sudip Dasgupta, in his statement, has categorically admitted that he has failed to obtain authorization from the actual importer i.e. proprietor of M/s M.A. Traders. He also argued that the lapse on the part of the appellant is serious and the order passed by the Commissioner is fully justified. 6. We have heard both sides at length and perused the records. 7. The proceedings against the appellant has emanated from the investigation undertaken by DRI into the imports made by M/s M.A. Traders as well as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uiry Authority has recorded that the original date of the personal hearing was on 12.03.2018. On this date, one of the two witnesses i.e. Mr.Maswood Ahmed appeared and reiterated his earlier statement that he never authorized any person to import the goods in the name of this firm. But from the record, it appears to have been done behind the back of the appellant or his representative. The other witness, Mr.Abid Ali did not appear even on 12.03.2018. The Inquiry Authority did not consider it necessary to give one more opportunity for cross examination. 9. After carefully considering the facts of the case, we are of the view that there are discrepancies between the statements given by Mr.Abid Ali as well as Mr.Maswood Ahmed. The appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
