9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Chapter IVA of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. In case of Bill of Entry No.156203 dated 11.12.09, 15.171 MT of Cypraea Annulus (Sea Shells) as against declared quantity of 22 MT were found. In case of Bill of Entry No.156153 dated 11.12.09, 9.218 MT (approx.) of Sea Shells and 4.8 MT of OPC as against declared quantity of 18 MT of Sea Shells were found. In these manner, the OPC prohibited items were found concealed in the guise of OGL items. The goods were placed under seizure on 14.12.2009 under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.2 On the basis of preliminary investigation conducted and the various statements and also the seizure of samples of coral from the office of one Shri Dinesh Pathania, proprietor of one M/s Sea Hawk, it was revealed that Shri Dinesh Pathania, Prop. of M/s Sea Hawk and Shri Sukhdev Singh, Assistant Marketing Manager of M/s Sea Hawk World Wide Logistic, Ludhiana were found to be facilitating the Customs clearance with the active assistance of Shri Amardeep Singh G Card Holder and Shri Sandeep Singh H Card Holder of the appellant. Shri Sandeep Singh, H Card Holder of the appellant was facilitating in lieu of illegal gratification, the clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion is that CHALR, 2004 underwent amendment and provisions were made for giving an opportunity of hearing within prescribed time limit of passing order of suspension, with effect from 8.4.2004. 3.3 The contention is that DRI, New Delhi has already issued show-cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 on 8.6.2010 against the importer including the appellant. The appellant and H Card Holder have been called upon to show-cause why penalty should not be imposed in terms of Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that H Card Holder employees of the appellant are found to have indulged themselves facilitating clearance of the imported consignment. The contention is that there is no allegation that the appellant had any knowledge or involvement in the said import. 3.4 The contention is that Vide Establishment Order No.271/2010 dated 25.10.2010, suspension was ordered in connection with an incident which took place on 11.12.2009 at Amritsar on the ground that an inquiry is contemplated against the appellant under Regulation 22 of the said Regulations, 2004 and as such the continuation of the appellant as CHA transacting business pending such inquiry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion) : 2010 (256) ELT 545 (Cal.) 4.1 The contention of the Department is that the appellants were directly involved in the modus operandi of the illegal importation of OPC as Shri Amardeep Singh, G Card holder and Shri Sandeep Kumar, H Card Holder of the appellant were in full knowledge of the concealment of the prohibited goods in the import containers and before import, they had discussed, negotiated with the importers and others regarding the concealment of the prohibited goods and had sought payment of Rs.1,65,000/- for two containers of the goods which were prohibited as is clear from the show-cause notice dated 21.2.2012. 4.2 The contention is that Shri Amardeep Singh, G Card Holder and Shri Sandeep Kumar, H Card Holder of the appellants, in their statement, admitted that they were paying Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- per month respectively to the appellant for using their name for import and export clearances. 4.3 Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, G Card Holder of the appellant, has also admitted that he was paying Rs.10,000/- per month for using name of the appellant for import and export clearances. The contention is that Shri Sharma was shown as employee with s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tablishment Order No.271/2010 dated 25.10.2010. The ld. Commissioner while exercising his power vested in him under Regulation 20 (2) of CHALR, 2004, has suspended the CHA license by recording the reason for which he has come to the conclusion for the said suspension with immediate effect. Thereafter, while following the principle of natural justice by way of giving post decisional hearing, he has confirmed suspension of the appellant s license. He has also ordered for the proceeding for revocation of license under Regulation 20 (2) of CHALR, 2004. The net result of suspension or revocation of the license is to stop/end the operation. The ld. Commissioner in his order of continuance of suspension has disclosed evidences against the appellant justifying the suspension of CHA license. The suspension is required to be followed by an inquiry which only can establish the facts relating to the case after which the Authority can cancel the CHA license or revoke the CHA license or can revoke the suspension itself. We note that the appellants have not challenged jurisdiction of the suspending authority nor it is their allegation that the authority has acted beyond his jurisdiction. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he view that once the court exercising power of judicial review is satisfied that an order does not suffer from total non-application of mind nor it is a non-speaking one, it may refrain itself from going into the merit of the matter . 5.5 In so far as the case of B. N. Thakkar & Co. (supra) cited by the appellant is concerned, no enquiry was initiated against the appellant under CHALR, 2004. Similarly, in the case of Babaji Shivram Clearing & Carriers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon ble Bombay High Court held that though post decisional hearing was given, but no order was passed. In the case of K. S. Kannan & Coo (supra), the Tribunal held that no enquiry was pending and no show-cause notice was issued. Admittedly, the facts are not relatable to the present case. The Tribunal s decision in the case of Crown Shipping Agency (supra), is also not relatable to the present case. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of P.P.Dutta (supra) relates to revocation of license. Similarly, the facts and circumstances of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Krishan Kumar Sharma (supra) are not relatable to this case. In so far as the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Calcutta in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
