9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary concern. The appellant filed four shipping bills bearing Nos.7557073 dated 30/07/2009, 7563198 dated 01/08/2009, 7571506 dated 04/08/2009 and 7575681 dated 06/08/2009 on behalf of M/s. Chawla Trading Co., Nagpur, by declaring the goods as basmati rice as per the export documents such as invoices, packing list and original certificate issued by Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) provided by the exporter. The goods were received by the appellant at Navkar CFS, Panvel, directly from the suppliers of the exporter. After completion of the carting procedure, the shipping bills were presented before the Superintendent of Customs for inspection of goods for issuance of Let Export Order (LEO). Represent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 alleging misuse of the CHA license by the appellant for monetary consideration and aiding and abetting the exporter in the export of non-basmati rice as basmati rice. The appellants CHA licence was suspended vide order dated 22/10/2009. Thereafter, a post decisional hearing was granted by the Commissioner of Customs (General) and a final order confirming the suspension was issued vide order No.77/2010 dated 04/03/2010. 2.2 The appellant approached this Tribunal against the suspension and this Tribunal vide order No.M/21/11/CSTB/C-II in A/39/11/CSTB/C-II dated 07/02/2011 directed the Ld. Commissioner to complete the proceedings under CHALR, 2004 within a period of three months and pass final order on the matter. 2.3 A charge sheet was is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proved and thereafter, the case was heard by the Commissioner of Customs (General), who has passed the impugned order. On the basis of inquiry report, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the appellant has violated the provisions of Regulations 12 & 13 of CHALR, 2004 and accordingly, he revoked the CHA licence of the appellant. Hence, the appellants are before us. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits the following: 3.1 The charges made against the appellant were claimed to have been proved by the inquiry officer against the appellant on the basis of the statement dated 19/08/2009 wherein the appellant had admitted prior knowledge about the mis-declaration by the exporter and also sub-letting his licence to Shri Vijay Mang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceedings are vitiated. The Ld. Counsel further submits that the department produced four prosecution witnesses viz., S/Shri. Vijay Mange, Pradeep Mange, Suresh Kataria and Santosh Chawla. As per the averments made by these four departmental witnesses during the inquiry proceedings it is seen that Shri Vijay Mange and Shri Pradeep Mange have clearly stated that they have not used the CHA licence of the appellants by way of subletting or otherwise. Shri Santosh Chawla has also confirmed this fact. Shri Suresh Kataria, from whose warehousing facility, it is alleged that the non-basmati rice was procured and attempted to be exported, has clearly stated that the said non-basmati rice is still available in their godown and the goods under expor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -basmati rice. The samples of these goods were drawn by the Customs and sent to the Regional AGMARK laboratory and the said laboratory vide analytical report dated 20/08/2009 confirmed that the goods under export were "raw milled basmati rice". This report was not considered either by the inquiry authority or by the adjudicating authority, in the proceedings under CHALR 2004. The appellant obtained a certificate under RTI and the same was supplied to the appellant vide letter dated 22/12/2011. Since the goods under export have been proved to be basmati rice, the charge of mis-declaration of the goods under export which was the basis for the investigation, has been completely disproved. In fact, the basis for the imputation of charges for vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e business. Accordingly, this charge is also clearly unsustainable. As regards the charge that the appellant sublet his licence to one Shri Vijay Mange, the investigating agencies did not record any statement of Shri Vijay Mange in this regard. During the inquiry proceedings, Shri Vijay Mange has completely denied that the licence was sublet to him. As regards the reliance placed by the inquiry officer on the statement of the appellant inculpating himself, the said statement was retracted by the appellant the very next day at the first available opportunity before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Therefore, based on a retracted statement without any corroborative evidence, this charge cannot be established. Further, during the inquiry pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
