9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 539 - AT - CustomsRestoration of appeal - case of appellant is that the case 2017 (7) TMI 1160 - CESTAT KOLKATA was passed ex-parte - Circular dated 18.11.2013 - Held that - On perusal of the circular, I find that the circular is pertaining to all matters regarding Clearing agents and CHAs and shall be heard by a Division Bench. In the present case, the appellant filed the appeal against imposition of penalty of ₹ 1 lakh u/s 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Hence, it is not a case of CHA under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013. The contention of the ld. Counsel cannot be accepted. It is contended that the SCN was issued by the DRI officer who was not competent to issue the notice under the Customs Act - the main noticee had already accepted and acted upon the purported show cause notice and had settled the case before the Settlement Commission as narrated in detail in the order of the Tribunal. The main noticee has already acted upon the notice and in such circumstances the plea of the appellant herein who is a co-noticee has no substance - application for restoration of appeal dismissed.
Issues involved:
Application for restoration of Appeal No. Cus/75649/2014, Ex parte order, Consideration of grounds of appeal, Jurisdiction of DRI officer, Imposition of penalty under Customs Act, 1962, Applicability of Circular dated 18.11.2013, Recall of Final Order Analysis: The Applicant filed an application seeking restoration of Appeal No. Cus/75649/2014, which was dismissed on merit in their absence by the Tribunal. The Applicant contended that the order was passed ex parte and highlighted that the Show Cause Notice issued by the DRI, Kolkata, was not sustainable as per legal precedents. The Applicant argued that the Tribunal did not consider the grounds of appeal submitted by them, requesting a recall of the order for a fresh hearing on merit. However, the Tribunal had already decided the appeal on merit in the initial order. The Tribunal had imposed a penalty on the Appellant, a Custom House Agent, for their involvement in an offense related to the import of goods. The order detailed the facts of the case, including the diversion of goods in violation of exemption Notification conditions, and the role of the Appellant in the matter. The Tribunal found the imposition of penalty on the Appellant justified based on their involvement in the offense. The Applicant's counsel raised a point regarding the matter being heard by a Division Bench as per a Circular dated 18.11.2013, applicable to Clearing agents and CHAs. However, the Tribunal clarified that the circular did not apply in this case as it pertained to matters under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, which did not align with the Appellant's situation. The counsel also argued about the jurisdiction of the DRI officer in issuing the Show Cause Notice, citing a previous legal decision. The Tribunal examined this argument and noted that the main noticee had already settled the case before the Settlement Commission based on the notice. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the Appellant's plea as a co-noticee had no substance, and there was no basis to recall the Final Order. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the application filed by the Appellant. In summary, the Tribunal upheld the imposition of the penalty on the Appellant, a Custom House Agent, for their involvement in the offense related to the import of goods. The Tribunal dismissed the application for restoration of the appeal, considering the arguments presented by the Appellant regarding the ex parte order, consideration of grounds of appeal, jurisdictional issues, and the applicability of relevant Circulars. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of the legal aspects and precedents cited during the proceedings.
|
