9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned advocate on behalf of the appellant made a submission on the facts of the case in detail. The CHA licence was revoked mainly on three grounds (a) failure to obtain authorization of the importer, (b) failure to advise the client and (c) failure to verify the genuineness of the IE code. It is contended that the importer had given an authorization and the concerned file was missing at the time of investigation. He submits that the appellant produced the authorization during the hearing as well as before the enquiry officer. Ld. Advocate in support of his contention drew the attention of the Bench to the affidavit dated 16.3.2011 affirmed by Shri Raja Ananthan, Managing Director, Lubecon Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. before the Hon'ble Madr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order is relevant in the present proceedings as discussed by the Commissioner. It is submitted that no reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Raja Ananthan and therefore, the request for cross-examination was rightly rejected. It is further submitted that on all the issues raised by the Ld. Advocate, the Commissioner had given finding in detail. 4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the charges framed on the basis that certain importers of Base Oil and Rubber Processing Oil were resorting to mis-declaration of description, quantity and value and evaded customs duty. In the impugned order, the Commissioner observed that there is negligence/dereliction of the duties of CHA and failed to fulfil the obl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.2012, we find that representative of the appellant appeared before the enquiry officer on 26.12.11 and explained their case. Thereafter on 6.1.2012, Shri Raja Ananthan, Managing Director of the importer appeared before the enquiry officer and stated that he has not given any authorisation letter. The enquiry officer issued the report on the basis of submissions made by the appellant-CHA, statement given by Shri S.Jayagopal, Managing Partner and authorized signatory of the appellant and statement of Raja Ananthan, M.D of the importer. It is apparent on the face of record that the enquiry officer had recorded the statement of the importer after hearing the CHA and observed that the appellant failed to obtain authorization of importer. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the charge of revocation of licence was framed mainly on the basis of failure to obtain authorization of the importer amongst others. In our considered view, the statement of Shri Raja Ananthan of the importer company is relevant for deciding the issue and more particularly, when there is contrary statement available on record, the cross-examination of Shri Raja Ananthan, Director of the importer company is liable to be allowed. 5. Hence we set aside the impugned order and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner of Customs (Seaport) to decide afresh after allowing cross examination as indicated above and all the issues raised by the appellant as above. The appeal is allowed by way of remand. As this is a case of revocation of CHA li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
