9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The petitioner, by name, M/s. Gemini Sea Air Freight Services is covered by the Customs House Agent Licence Regulation since they are operating as per the licence granted to them. While so, on 28-6-2007, Docks Intelligence Unit at Chennai Customs has summoned the petitioner for an enquiry and they have attended the said enquiry on the day. The petitioner's statement was recorded by custom officials in connection with the alleged offence committed by exporters namely M/s. Ajay Exports, Chennai and M/s. Sunita Metal Corporation, Chennai of undue drawback claim. Due to the said violations, the 1st respondent vide proceedings in F.No. S2/33/2004-CHA-VOL-I, dated 30-9-2010 passed an order prohibiting the operation of the petitioner under the lic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Agent Regulations, 2004 (hereinafter known as 'Regulation'). As per Regulation 13 of the said Regulations, the petitioner is responsible for the omissions and commissions of their employees and based on an investigation report from the CBI, Chennai, it was noticed that during the period 13-12-2005 to 4-4-2006, one M/s. Ajay Exports had filed forty two shipping bills for the export of stainless utensils to two companies at Dubai and UAE. Similarly, between 23-1-2006 and 5-4-2006, one M/s. Sunitha Metal Corporation, Chennai had filed seventeen Shipping Bills for export of Stainless Steel utensils to a foreign company. The said two companies made export with very less quantity of utensils, but falsely declared the weight to nearly 5 to 8 times ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r is that in view of the action of the Tribunal in not passing any orders in the stay application, the petitioner is prejudiced as there is no effective remedy to protect his interest. Therefore, he moved this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 9. This submission is refuted by the learned counsel for the respondents that it is a settled legal position, when a person aggrieved has already availed the statutory remedy before the appropriate forum, he cannot simultaneously proceed to challenge the same proceedings before this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it is for them to contest the matter before the CESTAT even for an application for stay. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. 10.&emsp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
