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

2000 (5) TMI 99

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 98 and it was converted into a permanent CHA licence by the Government in Oct., 1989 and has been functioning since then without any blemish as once the allegation against him was finally discharged by the Tribunal. In the present case, the impugned order has alleged that the appellant was certainly concerned with the overvaluation of Ball Pens exported to Spain under two Shipping Bills pertaining to M/s. Jacees Exports, Bombay bearing No. 016048 and 016050 both dated 26-7-99. While the value declared therein was Rs. 18/- per piece approx., Revenue contended that the correct value would be Rs. 3/- per piece only. In view of these contentions, Ld. Commissioner passed the order of suspension after a delay of 3 months and 5 days between the al .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tifying the immediate action of suspension under Regulation 21(2) of CHALR. He also cites the decision of the Tribunal in D.H. Patkar Co. v. CC as in 1999 (111) E.L.T. 631 (T) wherein a similar view has been upheld by the Tribunal regarding the suspension only if immediate action is called for. He further cites the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in UOI v. Shashi Deo Jha as in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 385 (Cal.) wherein it was held that suspension of a licence cannot be indefinite and the reasons necessitating such suspension are to be recorded in the order. Ld. Advocate submits that no clear reasons necessitating the suspension immediately are recorded in the order impugned. He further cites the case of M.M. Clearing v. CC as in 1999 (113) E .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d by the exporter himself and clearly shows that declared value of the goods. Therefore, appellant as a CHA cannot, by under any circumstances, be linked with the declared value on these documents by the exporter :- (i) Invoice dated 7-7-99 signed by exporter himself. (ii) Packing List signed by the exporter of 7-7-99 (filed at page 33 of the paper book) (iii) Second invoice dated 7-7-99 also signed by the exporter (page 34 of the paper book) and (iv) The Exchange Control copy of the Shipping Bill which is normally used by the Reserve Bank of India for exchange control purposes is available on page 37 of the paper book and the exporter himself has signed the declared value on the reverse thereof. (d) Ld. Advocate further submits .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... view that an earlier offence had been committed by the appellant is merely reflective of their own presumption. 6. Ld. DR submits that in view of the said order dated 1-11-99 of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the show cause notice could be issued only on 28-1-2000 after the writ petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dated 25-1-2000. Hence, there was no delay in issue of show cause notice. He further submits that the entries of the two Shipping Bills were not made in the Register required to be maintained by the CHA under the Regulation 14 read with Regulation 19 of the CHALR. He further submits that since the appellant had signed the Shipping Bills as authorised signatory of the exporter, therefore, appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al of the order impugned that except for mention of an earlier alleged infringement done by the appellant, there is no other grounds spelt-out therein which compelled the Ld. Commissioner to suspend the said licence. In this connection, we find that once the Tribunal vide final order noted above had absolved the appellant of all wrong doings by setting aside the order, again before the Tribunal the Commissionerate cannot take this as a precedential value by holding that appellant had in the past committed any gross irregularity. If this view is not taken, then the very purpose behind the adjudication of the issue by the Tribunal would be lost. Therefore, if this be so, then the present allegation can only be treated as vague. (4) We are, .....

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