9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved as the authorization filed by the appellant was not objected by the Customs. While giving the personal hearing to the appellant, the Commissioner has not given notice to the appellant that he is not agreeing with the Inquiry Officer's report and the reasons for not agreeing with the report, thus the remaining charges also stands not proved - in favour of assessee. - C/454/11 - - - Dated:- 2-7-2012 - Mr.Ashok Jindal, Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. For Appellant: Mr. H.R. Shetty, Advocate For Respondent: Mr. A.K. Prabhakar, Superintendent (A.R) Per: Ashok Jindal 1. The appeal is against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai wherein the CHA Licence No. 11/205 has been revoked ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Shri H.R. Shetty, the learned advocate for the appellant appeared before us and submitted that with regard to charge under Regulation 13(a) of the CHALR 2004, the appellant was not aware that the IE Code produced before them by the importer Mr. V.K. Mishra was fraudulently procured by the importer. In fact, the importer has authorized the appellant through the authority letter with his signature attested by the bank where they were operating the account and on the basis of that the appellant dealt with the consignment and authorization was duly received by them which was produced at the time of clearance and the Customs have not objected to the same, therefore they cannot be penalized for violation under Regulation13(a) of the CHALR, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be continued to do fraudulent activities under the garb of the said licence. Therefore, the impugned order is to be upheld. 6. Heard both sides and considered the submissions. 7. As we have observed that in this case, the charges against the appellant has been framed under Articles 13(a), 13(b), 13(e) , 19(8) and 13(n) of the CHALR 2004. Except the charge under Article 13(a), rest of the charges were held by the Inquiry Officer as not proved . Therefore, first we deal with the charge under Article 13(a) which has been proved against the appellant. On verification, we find that the appellant had done clearance of the goods. The appellant took authorization from the importer and the authorization was also attested by the bank. Whether thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
