9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is involved in fraudulent import of goods such as Radio Cassette Recorders and Crockery items and by resorting to undervaluation by M/s Idol Enterprises and one of their employees Mr. Dinker Ghanekar who dealt with the Customs clearance knew the fact of undervaluation. Investigation was further conducted and during the course of investigation it was found that the appellant have cleared the goods on the fake IE Code which was found later on to have been fraudulently taken by the appellant. Therefore, their licence under Regulation 20 (2) of the Regulations was suspended. After suspension of the licence, proceedings under Regulations 22 were initiated and Articles of Charge were framed for violation of Regulations 13(a), 13(d) 13(e), 19 (8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 (263) ELT 353 (Bom) which was followed by the Tribunal in Adarsh Clearing Agency (Order No. A/547 to 549/2011/CSTB/CI dated 28.11.2011) and Vipul P Doshi (Order No.A-576/2011/CSTB/CI dated 20.12.2011). 4. With regard to the remaining charges against the appellant, he submitted that as the Inquiry Officer has dropped the charges against them and without putting them to the notice by the Commissioner of Customs (General), he confirmed the charges against them which is not proper as held by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rajan Verji & Co in Customs Appeal No. 25/2006. As per the said decision, the Commissioner of Customs (General) cannot differ with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Though the Hon ble Bombay High Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eport from the concerned bank was obtained. Therefore, at the time of clearance of the goods, appellant was under bona fide belief accepted the authorization. It is also a fact that at the time of clearance of the goods, the Customs officer has also not objected to the authorization. In that case, the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of SS Clearing and Forwarding Agency Pvt Ltd (supra) is applicable to the facts of the case on the basis of the above cited decisions, we hold that the charges under Article 13(a) of the CHALR 2004 stands not proved as the authorization filed by the appellant was not objected by the Customs. 8. With regard to the remaining charges, we find that while giving the personal hearing to the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
