9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 337 - AT - CustomsSuspension of CHA license - Issuance of notice Duty of Custodian to issues notice to CHA Notice u/s 48 of the Customs Act - Held that - Section 48 requires a notice to be issued to the importer and permission of the proper officer to be obtained - The learned A.R. could not show any statutory provision which requires the CHA to ensure that cargo is cleared within a specified period and in the absence of any statutory provision requiring CHA to ensure clearance of cargo, action against the CHA is not warranted - The only negligence on the part of CHA is that he has lost the docket of bill of entry and the concerned person dealing with the bill of entry had left them - However, it cannot be said that CHA should suffer such serious punishment for the lapses on the part of the custodian who has failed to fulfill the statutory obligation - The punishment of suspension till date and forfeiture of security is sufficient for the omissions on the part of CHA in this case but otherwise impugned order uphold - Appeal is decided in the above terms Decided in favour of appellant.
Issues: Appeal for early hearing, Stay petition, Customs CHALR 2004 proceedings, Custodian's failure to issue notice, Suspension and forfeiture of security deposit.
Early Hearing Application: The appellant sought early hearing of the appeal due to the suspension of their CHA license for six months. The Tribunal found the request reasonable and allowed the early hearing application with the consent of both parties for a final decision. Stay Petition: The appellant filed a stay petition seeking a stay on the operation of the impugned order. However, since the appeal was taken up for hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the stay application as infructuous. Customs CHALR 2004 Proceedings: Proceedings were initiated against the appellant under Customs CHALR 2004 due to alleged negligence in discharging duties, resulting in the sale of the consignment by the custodian. The Tribunal upheld the suspension of the license for six months and forfeiture of the security deposit based on the impugned order issued on 15.1.2014. Custodian's Failure to Issue Notice: The appellant argued that the custodian failed to issue a notice before disposing of the cargo, which was valued at Rs. 1.8 crores but sold for Rs. 9 lakhs. The Tribunal noted that the custodian's failure to follow the requirements of Section 48 of the Customs Act was a significant lapse, shifting the blame away from the appellant. Suspension and Forfeiture of Security Deposit: The Tribunal acknowledged some negligence on the part of the CHA but emphasized that the custodian's failure to fulfill statutory obligations was the primary issue. The Tribunal considered the punishment of suspension and forfeiture of the security deposit sufficient for the CHA's omissions, reducing the suspension period to 28.2.2014 while upholding the impugned order in all other aspects. The appeal was decided accordingly.
|
