9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in discharging their obligations under Regulations 12 and 13 (b) of CHALR, 2004. The statement of the appellant recorded by the DRI shows that the appellant was subletting their CHA licence to various 27 persons on commission basis. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant for sub-letting their CHA licence without any authority of law. On receipt of the enquiry report from DRI, the CHA licence was suspended initially on 22.12.2008 and Charges were framed against the appellant for alleged violation of Regulation 12, 13(b) and 13 (d) & 13 (e) of the CHALR, 2004. The Inquiry Officer conducted an inquiry and submitted his report on 23.12.2010 holding all the charges alleged against the appellant stands not proved. Thereafter, on 07.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s their employees and are getting salaries from the appellant. Therefore, the charge against the appellant that they have sub-let their CHA licence is not proved as there is no evidence has been brought by the Revenue on record that they have sublet the licence. In these circumstances, the learned Advocate prays that the charge of sub-letting stands not proved. 4.1 With regard to Charge under Regulation 13 (b), the Revenue has failed to brought any evidence that these 27 persons were not employees and have not dealt with any consignment in clearance. Therefore, the Charge stands not proved. 4.2 Learned Advocate further submits that there are four imports against whom proceedings under Customs Act were initiated. In case of two imports, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant. Although in the statement recorded by DRI, the appellant has admitted that they have given the CHA licence to these persons to use on certain consideration but during the course of enquiry these persons were never called for interrogation or for cross-examination. With regard to the statement of the appellant, the persons who were involved in the activity no other evidence is brought on record therefore, the charge is not proved. We further observed that the statement of Shri M.I. Peerzada recorded by the DRI is unsigned by any of DRI officer. Therefore, the statement cannot be relied upon. We further observed that in the proceedings under Customs Act, out of four cases, in three cases, no involvement of the appellant has been hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
