TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 768X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e introduction of the Regulations. The Show Cause Notice itself is not sustainable in law and the entire proceedings are vitiated. The impugned order revoking the license or directing to forfeit the security cannot sustain in law. This apart, the ld. Counsel has also pointed out that there is much delay in adjudication and that for the export in 2003, the order of revocation has been passed in 2011. The Show Cause Notice was issued on 7.8.2006. Personal hearing was conducted before the adjudicating authority on 13.6.2007 and later on 7.2.2008. The impugned order has been passed after concluding the personal hearing with a delay of more than four-and-half years. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No. 282/2011 - Final Order No. 42308/2021 - Dated:- 15-9-2021 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) and Shri P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical) Shri S. Murugappan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S. Balakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The above appeal was originally disposed by this Tribunal vide common Final Order No. 41676 and 41677/2018 dated 26.3.2013 by which the Tribunal disposed Appeal No. C/351/2010 and A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in association with one Shri Ashokan of M/s. ASP Shipping Services. Statement of the managing partner of the appellant firm Shri P. Ilangovan was recorded on 29.12.2005 wherein inter alia he admitted that they had attended to the exports pertaining to the said exporters and did not obtain authorization. That they received export documents from M/s. K.S. Freight Forwarders. That the contact in respect of these seven exporters was through M/s. K.S. Freight Forwarders only. It appeared to the department that the appellant had transacted business in the customs station without verifying the bonafides of the exporters and they have caused huge loss to the exchequer by facilitating claim of ineligible drawback. 7. Show Cause Notice dated 7.8.2006 was issued to the appellant under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004 alleging violation of provisions of Regulation 13 and 19(8) of the CHALR, 2004, proposing to revoke the CHA license dated 8.1.2001 issued to the appellant and for forfeiture of security deposit. Inquiry proceedings as envisaged under Regulation 22 of CHALR 2004 was conducted. The Inquiry Officer submitted the report dated 16.1.2007 wherein it was concluded that the CHA had not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... drawback is sanctioned to the exporter by the department and the CHA has no connection with the drawback. The role of the appellant is limited to filing of shipping bills and to attend to other connected activities relating to clearance of the goods. Further, there is no evidence to conclude that the appellant has any role in the fraudulent acts committed by the exporters. He prayed to set aside the impugned order. 13. He relied on the decision in the case of Joveens Expotex Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Coimbatore reported in 2018 (363) ELT 414 (Tri. Chennai) to argue that the said case arises out of very same investigations wherein ineligible drawback was availed by the exporters. 14. The learned AR Shri S. Balakumar supported the findings in the impugned order. 15. Heard both sides. 16. The foremost objection raised by the learned counsel for appellant is that though the exports have taken place in 2003, Show Cause Notice proposing to revoke the license has been issued in 2006 under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004. On a perusal of the Annexure to the Show Cause Notice, it is seen that all the shipping bills are of 2003. The details of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. M/s. Cadlluck Exports Imports, 12-B/TC, 114, Friends Trading Center, MG Road, Trichur, Kerala 4925/31.03.03 400065 4922/31.01.03 401452 4923/31.01.03 401452 Total 12157780 17. CHALR, 2004 came into force only on 23.4.2004. The Preamble of the said Regulation reads as under:- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 146 of the Customs Act, 1962, (52 of 1962), and in supersession of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984, except as respect things done or omitted to be done before such supersession , the Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby makes the following Regulations:- [Emphasis supplied] 18. It is clear that for the acts or omissions which are done before the CHALR, 2004 came into force [vide Notification No. 21/2004-Cus. (NT) dated 23.2.2004], the erstwhile CHALR, 1984 would apply. The shipping bills in these transactions are of the year 2003. So also in the Show Cause Notice, the department has men ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
