9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are that M/s. Lakshmi Traders had filed a Bill of Entry No.3353 dt. 16/04/2004 at ICD, Bangalore through their CHA M/s. Koushik Cargo Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore (hereinafter also referred to as CHA) for clearance of 21 MT of Sodium Sulphate valued at Rs. 77,219/- imported from China. The goods were imported from M/s. Shenzhen Cereals Oils and Foodstuffs Co. Ltd., China vide Invoice No. SCOF4031 dt. 02/03/2004 which was filed along with the said Bill of Entry. The Bill of Lading No. HLCUSHAO0260412 and certificate of origin No.032004011 which were submitted along with the said Bill of Entry indicated that there were 700 bags of Sodium Sulphate. However, on physical examination of the cargo by the officers of the Customs Preventive, HQRS, Bangalore, it was found that there are 400 bags each weighing 15 kgs. (totally 6000 kgs.) containing some white fine powdery chemical and 300 bags each weighing 50 kgs. (totally 15000 kgs.) containing a whitish colored coarse chemical. These samples were not sodium sulphate as declared but also contained some other chemical which was being attempted to be smuggled into India by concealing in between the bags of Sodium Sulphate. The test report confirmed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the facts and the law. He further submitted that the CHA was guilty of acts and omission and has connived with the importer in misdeclaration and undervaluation of the imported cargo. CHA was issued a show-cause notice dt. 21/10/2004 which was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner of Customs vide Order-inoriginal dt. 31/01/2006 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 75,000/- against the CHA as well as against its Director Shri T.S. Kishore under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act. On an appeal by the CHA, the Commissioner dropped the penalty on the Director and upheld the penalty on the CHA. There after the CHA filed an appeal before the CESTAT and CESTAT vide its Final Order No.385/2011 dt. 14/06/2011 dismissed the appeal filed by the CHA. He further submitted that once the CESTAT has dismissed the appeal, the proceedings against the CHA come to an end. He also submitted that against the CESTAT order, CHA filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka but subsequently the said appeal has been disposed of as withdrawn vide order dt. 21/03/2014 by the High Court of Karnataka and thereby the penalty imposed on the CHA has reached finality. He further submitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an application dt. 06/06/2014 for renewal of licence. Licence of the appellant was not renewed and a show-cause notice dt. 26/06/2014 proposing for refusal to renew the licence in terms of Regulation 9(2) read with Regulation 5(e) of the CHLR 2013 was issued on the ground that penalty of Rs. 75,000/- paid under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act attained finality after the withdrawal of the appeal by the CHA filed before the High Court of Karnataka and by resorting to Regulation 5(e) which is a bar on issuing a new licence on account of any misconduct on the part of the CHA. The Commissioner vide the impugned order dt. 11/07/2014 rejected the renewal of CHA licence and hence the present appeal has been filed by the CHA. 8. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that refusal to renew the lencence is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the Commissioner himself in para 7 of the impugned order has observed "for renewing the licence every 6 months even if the penalty paid by the appellant vide Final Order No.385/2011 att ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter considering the submissions of both the parties, we find that there is no force in the contention of the learned AR in the Department's appeal which we have dismissed by upholding the decision of the Commissioner dropping the proceedings against the CHA. Further we find that when there was no evidence against the CHA for his involvement in the undervaluation, then his licence is not liable for revocation and it was rightly decided by the Commissioner while dropping the proceedings against them. Further we find that after the decision of the Tribunal upholding the penalty of Rs. 75,000/- imposed on the CHA under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, the CHA paid the penalty and there after the Department vide its letter dt. 23/12/2011 asked the CHA to pay the penalty amount of Rs. 75,000/- which was subsequently paid by the CHA and his licence was renewed from time to time subject to the outcome of Department's appeal No.C/632/2008. Since we dismissed the Department's appeal by upholding the order of the Commissioner dropping the proceedings against the CHA and the fact that CHA's licence was renewed from time to time hence the refusal to renew the licence in terms of Regul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
