TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3, the present proceedings, having been initiated post 2013, must be proceeded under the new regulations. CHALR, 2004 cannot be invoked as they did not exist during the relevant period. The impugned order is bad in law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. C/76938/2018 - Final Order No. 75110/2020 - Dated:- 23-1-2020 - HON'BLE MR. P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON'BLE MR. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri H.K. Pandey, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri A.K. Singh, Authorized Representative for the Respondent. ORDER PER: P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO. 1. This appeal is filed against Order-in-Original No. KOL/CUS/AIRPORT/ADMN/04/2018 dt.27.02.2018 passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... login ID and password of the appellant with which he filed Bills of entry. They had used the IEC and KYC details of M/s R.S. Import Export as they already had these details with them and imported the goods in question. 4. Statements were also recorded from Shri Gagan H. Vinayak, another partner in the smuggling racket and Shri Rakesh Kumar, G-card holder of the appellant. After completing the investigation, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant calling upon them to explain as to why their customs broker license should not be revoked and their security deposit should not be forfeited. Enquiry proceedings were completed as per regulations and thereafter, by the impugned order, the adjudicating authority has, after giving thr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere no longer in existence. However, the license was revoked under the non-existing superseded CHALR, 2004. This shows non-application of mind by the adjudicating authority. 6. Learned departmental representative supports the impugned order and asserts that it calls for no interference. 7. We have considered the submissions on both sides and perused the records. As far as the first submission of the appellant is concerned, we do find that by OIO No. KOL/CUS/AIRPORT/ADMN/17/2016 dt.30.08.2016 issued on 31.08.2016 in another matter pertaining to the appellant, the learned Principal Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata had already revoked the license of the appellant and has also ordered forfeiture of the entire amount of security depo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby makes the following regulations, namely: 9. A plain reading of the above shows that the erstwhile regulations have been completely superseded except in respect of things which were already done. We also find that there is no separate savings clause in the CBLR, 2013. Therefore, regardless of the fact that the appellant was licensed prior to the introduction of CBLR, 2013, the present proceedings, having been initiated post 2013, must be proceeded under the new regulations. CHALR, 2004 cannot be invoked as they did not exist during the relevant period. 10. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the allegations made in the show cause notice and affirmed in the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
