9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner before this Court is a Customs Broker with a valid 'Customs Broker Licence' (hereinafter 'CBL' for brevity) issued by an appropriate Authority. 4. Customs Broker Licence Number is IND/001/2007 and it is not in dispute that the same is valid up to 2027. Authority, who has issued Customs Broker Licence is, Indore Customs Commissionerate. To be noted, vide the CBL, writ petitioner has been allowed to transact business in Chennai Customs by Chennai Customs Commissionerate. 5. In the course of the business activity, service of the writ petitioner was engaged by one M/s. Shree Radhakrishna Textiles, Gujarat for exporting goods declared as 100% poly knitted boys jacket (fancy) to Dubai. For export of aforesaid consignment to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n imposed under Section 117 of the said Act and a recommendation has been made for initiation of enquiry against the writ petitioner under 'Customs Broker Licensee Regulations, 2018' ('CBRL' for brevity). There are other aspects of the impugned order against the exporter, but this Court is informed by Revenue counsel that the exporter has not chosen to assail the impugned order and therefore, it is not necessary to going into those aspect of the matter. 11. As far as the pivotal issue in the instant writ petition, namely the impugned order not being preceded by a notice under Section 124 of said Act to the writ petitioner is concerned, a perusal of the impugned order reveals that a personal hearing had been held and writ pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he specific case and stated position of writ petitioner that if the grounds i.e., grounds on which penalty was proposed to be levied had been communicated in accordance with Section 124(a) of the said Act, the writ petitioner would have been able to meet the same. In this view of this matter considering facts of this case, this Court is left with the considered view that personal hearing alone does not satisfy NJP in the instant case. In other words, this Court sustains the submission of learned counsel for writ petitioner in this regard. 16. With regard to the second ground that writ petitioner has admitted in its capacity as CBL holder that it has failed to verify the correctness of the value and quality of the export consignment, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n opportunity to dispel the same. 18. As far as the exporter is concerned, as already alluded to supra impugned order is a composite order and this Court is informed by Revenue counsel that exporter has not chosen to assail the impugned order. This assumes significance as a perusal of the impugned order reveals that exporter has clearly waived issue of notice under Section 124 (a) of the Act. In this regard, learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that in contradistinction, writ petitioner has not waived issue of notice though writ petitioner participated in the personal hearing. 19. In the light of the narrative thus far, the following order is passed by this Court: a) The impugned order being order dated.11.02.2019 bearing referen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
