9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 816 - HC - CustomsProceedings against the CHA - validity in continuation of proceedings where, in order in original commissioner set aside the demand on the importer - Held that - We asked then Mr. Jetly as to how the notice dated 2nd December, 2015, addressed to the petitioner by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai, survives. Why should then the petitioner be proceeded against under Regulation 20 of the Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2013, as none of the charges, prima facie, can be then substantiated particularly in the teeth of the conclusions recorded in the order-in-original. Mr. Jetly states that the Commissioner would duly take note of this order of 26th February, 2016, marked X for identification and pass consequential orders, but would require three months time. - Commissioner directed to pass all consequential orders within prescribed time frame.
Issues involved:
1. Allegations of duty evasion and violation of Customs Act, 1962 by M/s. Tadano Limited and their Logistics Contractor. 2. Order-in-original passed by Commissioner Customs (Imports), Mumbai on 26th February, 2016. 3. Refrain from denial of exemption, confiscation, and imposition of penalties. 4. Refund of Customs duty already paid by the importer. 5. Survivability of the notice dated 2nd December, 2015, and proceedings under Regulation 20 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013. Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment deals with allegations of duty evasion and violation of the Customs Act, 1962 by M/s. Tadano Limited and their Logistics Contractor, the petitioners. The Commissioner Customs (Imports), Mumbai passed an order-in-original on 26th February, 2016, based on a show cause notice. The order-in-original highlighted the exemption granted under Notification No.157/90 in the case of A.T.A. Carnet, stating that there was no violation found in the conditions of the exemption. The order refrained from denying exemption, confiscation of goods, or imposing penalties on the importer and the Logistics Contractor. 2. The order-in-original specifically mentioned the refund of Customs duty amounting to ?1,11,44,475 already paid by the importer. The court inquired about the admitted position of the order from the respondent's counsel, who confirmed the passage of the order-in-original. The court expressed disapproval of delays in taking necessary actions by the authorities, noting that the petitioner had to repeatedly approach the court due to delays. The court set a deadline of four weeks for the Commissioner to pass all consequential orders, failing which the Commissioner would have to appear in court with all original files. 3. The judgment raised concerns about the survivability of the notice dated 2nd December, 2015, addressed to the petitioner by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai. The court questioned the need for proceedings under Regulation 20 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013, when the charges could not be substantiated in light of the conclusions in the order-in-original. The respondent's counsel mentioned that the Commissioner would consider the order-in-original and pass consequential orders but requested three months, which the court disapproved of, setting a strict deadline of four weeks for completion. In conclusion, the judgment addressed issues related to duty evasion, violation of the Customs Act, 1962, the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner, refraining from denial of exemption and penalties, refund of Customs duty, and the need for timely actions by the authorities to avoid delays and repeated court interventions.
|
