Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2021 (11) TMI 696

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and the conclusion had been arrived at on presumed admission as reported by the Presenting Officer. The ostensible reason for such summary conclusion was the non-availability of the licensee at the licensed address - Without examining the legality of continuance of proceedings after the nominated official ceased to be Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Customs, the absence of any record evincing that licensee had been placed on notice about acquiescence of the Commissioner of Customs with the re-designated official carrying out the entrusted task may well have been the reason for non-acceptance of communication emanating from an address that could, conceivably, alarm the appellant herein. It is on record that the alleged breach of oblig .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pellant Shri Ramesh Kumar, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the respondent ORDER Arguing the case of the appellant, M/s RR Joshi (holder of CHA license no. 11/486), in this challenge to order no. 26/CAO/CC (G)/PKA dated 19th February 2013 of Commissioner of Customs (General), New Custom House, Mumbai which forfeited the security deposit, while permitting the continued operation of the license with fresh deposit as applicable, under regulation no. 20 of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984, it is the contention of Learned Counsel that the proceedings were conducted behind the back of the licensee, that there are no findings recorded by the inquiry authority, that the penalty is disproportionate to the gravity of off .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... stoms House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 was issued on 25th January 2012 and Inquiry Authority appointed for the purpose. In the meanwhile, the show cause notice referred supra was adjudicated on 21st November 2011 dropping the proceedings with cautionary advice for the future and Commissioner of Customs, Delhi, vide order dated 29th November 2011, revoked the order of prohibition. Notwithstanding these facts being brought to the notice of the Inquiry Authority, the proceedings on the four charges of breach of regulation no. 13 (d), (e), (f) and (n) of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 was continued with. The Presenting Officer, in his report dated 7th July 2012 and on the basis of purported admission by the licensee, p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s with the same inquiry authority even after the change of office. It is indeed moot if the designated official, intended by regulation no. 22 of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, can be any other than a Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs. Without examining the legality of continuance of proceedings after the nominated official ceased to be Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Customs, the absence of any record evincing that licensee had been placed on notice about acquiescence of the Commissioner of Customs with the re-designated official carrying out the entrusted task may well have been the reason for non-acceptance of communication emanating from an address that could, conceivably, alarm the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n accepting such consignments or that such deliveries were conventionally accepted in the said jurisdiction. 7. The incident which gave rise to the proceedings occurred in January 2011 and the proceedings took one full year thereafter to commence. The role of the customs house agent in the alleged breach of procedure was also found to be condonable in adjudication proceeding. In the circumstances, we do not believe that public interest would serve for the entire proceedings, involving heavy investment in man-hours, to be resumed for the limited purpose of imposition of penalty that, in any case, could not exceed forfeiture of the security deposit. 8. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. (Orde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates