9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal Nos. C/234 235/2004 [2004 (175) E.L.T. 110 (Tribunal)]. In that final order, we had made it clear that the order would not stand in the way of any inquiry proceedings already commenced against the CHA under Regulation 23. The order impugned in the present appeal is one passed by learned Commissioner at the end of such inquiry proceedings under Regulation 23. 2. After examining the records, we find that a statement was recorded from Shri V. Nani Rao (Managing Partner of the CHA-firm) as part of inquiry under Regulation 23. In this statement (recorded on 15-9-2004), Shri Nani Rao stated that Shri Dilli Babu had been appointed as their manager on a consolidated salary, that (Shri Babu) he had solicited business of M/s. Prabhu Agencies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reful consideration to the submissions, we find that, in our earlier final order dated 13-7-2004, we had observed that, apparently, Shri Dilli Babu was one of the employees of the CHA. It was also found that the Bills of Entry were filed by an authorised representative of the CHA. It was also observed that nothing had been brought on record to show that the CHA transacted business, in relation to the subject goods, through Dilli Babu. It was on the basis of these findings that the charge against the appellants under Regulation 14(a) was held to be unsustainable. Regulation 14(a) required a CHA to act only under written authorisation by importer/exporter. We find that the new pieces of evidence brought on record would change the complexion o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n against the CHA was occasioned by the illegal cancellation of the Bill of Entry dated 8-1-2004. Had the Bill of Entry been allowed to be amended in accordance with law, the importer would not have been able to claim, the benefit of the aforesaid notification, which was issued on 9-1-2004 (amendment dating back to the date of filing). The proper officer cancelled the Bill of Entry, thereby enabling the importer to avail the benefit of concessional rate of duty under a fresh Bill of Entry, which was filed on 10-1-2004. In these facts and circumstances, in our considered opinion, it could not have been alleged that the CHA acted in collusion with the importer to evade Customs duty. If, at all, there was any collusion, the officer concerned w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
