9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 835X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide this OIO, the CHA License bearing No. 4/89 of M/s Tass Clearing Services Pvt Ltd has been revoked. He submits that for the earlier OIO passed on the same issue, the Appellant had approached the Tribunal vide their Appeal No. C/86/2007. The Tribunal, after going through the factual details, remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority with the following directions. "4. We have carefully considered the submissions and have gone through the entire judgments cited before us. As can be seen from the show cause notice, the appellants been charged with an offence of allowing unauthorized person to operate on their behalf and have signed blank customs documents. There is no grave charge against them. In case the charge was grave they sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nquiry Report, have submitted that the finding of the Inquiry Officer that the authorization letter not obtained by the appellant is not a contravention of Regulation 13(1); that if there is no verification of person filing the Shipping Bills at the EDI Centre, the finding of the Inquiry Officer with regard to violation of Regulation 13(d) is not sustainable; that the finding of the Inquiry Officer that possible knowledge of the designs of the exporter to defraud the Government is not based on any evidence except the suspicion of the Inquiry Officer; that the finding of the Inquiry Officer that CHA has signed blank Customs documents is contrary to his own findings that there is no verification of person filing Shipping Bills at the EDI Serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Superintendent, SIIB, on 05.10.2006. The Hon'ble CESTAT has remanded the case on the ground that the OIO No.19/2009 dt.17.07.2009 was passed without making available the Inquiry Report to the CHA, which is mandatory under Regulations 22(6) and (7) of CHALR 2004. The allegation that the CHA has violated the provisions of Law and the Regulations made thereunder, has not been disagreed by the Hon'ble CESTAT. In deference to the Final Order No. 1243/2010 dt.19.08.2010 passed by the Hon'ble CESTAT and the directions issued therein, an attested copy of the Inquiry Report was made available to the CHA. The CHA was also given another opportunity of personal hearing. The CHA's contentions in their reply and during the personal hearing, d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to why the submissions made by the Appellant are not acceptable to him. Therefore, the OIO is to be termed as Non-Speaking Order. He also submits that on the related issue, a Show Cause Notice was issued to M/s Seema Enterprises, Mumbai and other noticees including the present noticee and their Director seeking to know as to why penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. After following due process, the Adjudicating Authority in that case imposed penalty of Rs.5 Lakhs on the present Appellant and Rs.3 Lakhs on their Director. Being agitated by this OIO, the Appellants had filed Appeal Nos. C/77 & 78/2009 before the Tribunal. This Tribunal vide their Final Order No. A/30459-30460/2018 dt.21.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "11. As regards the CHA and its Director, there is no ground for imposition of penalty, as CHA has filed Bill of Entry (sic) showing the description and value on the basis of the records made available by the exporter and there is no evidence of knowledge on the part of the CHA that there was misdeclaration of description and value of the goods. Although the Ld. SDR seeks to justify the penalty on the CHA on the ground that they did not produce authorization letter from the exporter to clear the goods and therefore, penal action on CHA is required to be sustained, I find that the penalty has been imposed on CHA only for the failure in their obligation to file the documents with correct description and value of the goods. Further, penalty u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quiry conducted by the Officer and that the contraventions are clearly coming out in the Inquiry Officer's Report and after this he has proceeded to go ahead with confirming the demand. Further, we see that while deciding the issue as to whether the present Appellant is liable to be penalised under Section 114, this Tribunal has come to a conclusion that no explicit findings have been given by the other Adjudicating Authority to the effect that the present Appellant has abetted in contravening any provisions of Customs Act. The Tribunal has set aside the penalties imposed under Section 114 on the present Appellant and their Director. Coming to the case law cited by Learned AR, it is distinguishable on the ground that in that case the Hon'bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
