9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 186 - AT - CustomsJurisdiction - power of Committee of Chief Commissioners to review an appeal - Section 129A (1) (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Revocation of CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - Held that - Notwithstanding the provisions of Regulation 21 of the CBLR 2013, under Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962 the Committee of Chief Commissioners are fully empowered to review an order or decision for filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal - also, the department is entitled to file appeal in this matter under the provisions of Section 129A (1) (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Matter reserved for orders - Both sides to note that in case the Ld. Advocate fails to submit copies of case law relied upon and / or the Ld. A.R fails to submit the report on the said case laws, before 18.03.2019, the appeal will be taken up for finalisation and orders without any further reference to either side.
Issues:
1. Appeal against penalty and forfeiture imposed on Customs Broker. 2. Interpretation of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR) 2013. 3. Technical objection to Revenue's appeal under CBLR 2013. 4. Submission of cross objections by the Advocate. 5. Authority of Committee of Chief Commissioners to review orders for appeal. 6. Time granted for study of case laws and submission of reports. Analysis: 1. The judgment deals with an appeal by the Revenue against a penalty and forfeiture imposed on a Customs Broker by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-VIII. The issue raised was whether the order of penalty and forfeiture was in compliance with the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR) 2013. 2. The Ld. A.R argued that under Regulation 18 of the CBLR 2013, the Commissioner of Customs can revoke the license of the customs broker, order forfeiture of the security deposit, or impose a penalty not exceeding ?50,000. The contention was that if forfeiture is ordered, the license should also have been revoked as per the Regulation. 3. On the other hand, the Advocate raised a technical objection regarding the Revenue's appeal under CBLR 2013. He pointed out Regulation 21, stating that only a Customs Broker aggrieved by an order can file an appeal to the CESTAT under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. The Advocate argued that there is no provision for the Revenue to file an appeal under CBLR 2013. 4. The Advocate also submitted cross objections and cited relevant case laws to support his arguments. He emphasized that the case laws would cover his arguments comprehensively, indicating a strong legal defense. 5. The Ld. A.R countered the technical objection by asserting that under Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962, the Committee of Chief Commissioners has the authority to review orders for filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. She claimed that the department is entitled to file an appeal under Section 129A (1) (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 6. The Tribunal granted time for the study of case laws and submission of reports. Both parties were instructed to provide necessary documents by a specified deadline, failing which the appeal would proceed for finalization and orders without further reference. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal arguments presented by both sides and the procedural aspects considered by the Tribunal in addressing the issues raised during the appeal process.
|
