9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1069X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the customs officer and bills of entry has been duly signed by the appellant same is implied that the appellant has obtained authorisation from the importer. Therefore we hold that the charge levelled against the appellant under Regulation 13(a) stands not proved. With regard to charge under Regulation 13(d), we find that no discrepancy was found by the authorities in the documents filed by the appellant therefore question of advice does not arise and description shown in the bill of entry matches with the documents like invoice, packing list, when there is no discrepancy then it is not required for the appellant to bring it to the customs authorities. Further, in this case, only at the time of examination it was found that some fire wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r on 30-4-2010. The enquiry officer submitted report on 29-3-2012. Thereafter, the CHA licence was revoked on 4-7-2012. Aggrieved from the said order of revocation, the appellant is before us. 3. Shri O.P. Khanduja, ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that initially four charges were framed against the appellant for violation of Regulation 13(a), (d) and (n) and Regulation 12 of the CHALR, 2004. After conducting the enquiry, the enquiry officer dropped the charges levelled against them under Regulation 12 and 13(n). Remaining two charges under Regulation 13(a) and (d) were held proved but the ld. Commissioner without putting to notice to the appellant that he is not agreeing with the report of the enquiry officer held that all the cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... importation. Therefore relying on K.S. Sawant Co. - 2012 (284) E.L.T. 363 the charge proved against the appellant under Regulation 13(d) is also not sustainable. Therefore he prayed that impugned order be set aside. 4. On the other hand, ld. AR strongly opposed the contention of the appellant and drew our attention to the impugned order wherein it has been recorded by the ld. Commissioner that the appellant is involved in mis-declaring the impugned goods by way of the description shown in the bill of entry; same was found in the examination of the goods. Moreover, no authorisation was produced by the appellant at the time of clearance. Therefore the contention that the appellant has obtained authorisation from the importer prior to impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lied that the appellant has obtained authorisation from the importer. Therefore we hold that the charge levelled against the appellant under Regulation 13(a) stands not proved. With regard to charge under Regulation 13(d), we find that no discrepancy was found by the authorities in the documents filed by the appellant therefore question of advice does not arise and description shown in the bill of entry matches with the documents like invoice, packing list, when there is no discrepancy then it is not required for the appellant to bring it to the customs authorities. Further, in this case, only at the time of examination it was found that some fire works apart from the goods in the bill of entry which is not proved by the authorities was in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
