9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce to these 27 persons cannot be proved. - the Charge under Regulation 12 stands not proved. With regard to Regulation 13 (b) we find that no documents are available on record that these 27 persons have dealt with in clearance of imported goods in the name of the appellant. - the Charge under Regulation 13(b) also stands not proved. As charges under Regulations 13 (d) and (e) are consequential to Charges under Regulations 12 and 13(b) therefore, the Charges under Regulations 13 (d) and (e) are also stands not proved. As all the charges are stands not proved - order revoking the CHA licence No. 11/427 and forfeiture of security deposit set aside with immediate effect - Decided in favor of CHA. - Appeal No.C/89377/13 - Final Order No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Inquiry Report and proceedings were initiated against the appellant. The appellant was given an opportunity of being heard by the CC (General) and passed an order dated 18.10.2012 revoking the CHA license of the appellant and the security deposit has also been forfeited. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the statement recorded by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on 16.1.2008 has been retracted by the appellant before the DRI Head Office at New Delhi. He further submits that out of 27 persons, who allegedly used the license of the appellant, statement of 26 persons have never been recorded and the statement of Mr. Mohd. Illiyas Pee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udicating authority. In these circumstances, he prays that the impugned order lacks merit and hence the same is required be set aside. 5. On the other hand, the learned A.R. strongly opposes the contentions of the learned Advocate and submits that in this case the statement has been retracted by the appellant before the DRI, New Delhi office. But, in this case, the statement was recorded by the DRI, Mumbai office and if the appellant wanted to retract the statement, they would have retracted the same before the same Officer of Mumbai Unit who has recorded the first statement. Therefore, retraction before the DRI, New Delhi does not make any defence to rely on. The learned A.R. further submitted that the statement of the appellant itself ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 persons cannot be proved. Therefore, we held that the Charge under Regulation 12 stands not proved. 7.1 With regard to Regulation 13 (b) we find that no documents are available on record that these 27 persons have dealt with in clearance of imported goods in the name of the appellant. Therefore, we held that the Charge under Regulation 13(b) also stands not proved. 7.2 As charges under Regulations 13 (d) and (e) are consequential to Charges under Regulations 12 and 13(b) therefore, the Charges under Regulations 13 (d) and (e) are also stands not proved. As all the charges are stands not proved therefore, we set aside the impugned order revoking the CHA licence No. 11/427 and forfeiture of security deposit with immediate effect. 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
