9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the exporter. [In the case of P.P. Dutta (supra) it was recorded as a fact that the documents were signed by the exporter.] Thus, the violation of Regulation 13(a) is established. When the appellant never met the exporter and was never even in touch with it, it was obviously not in a position to advise it (i.e. the exporter) to comply with the provisions of the Customs Act and thus it failed to fulfil its obligation under Regulation 13(d) ibid and thereby stood in violation thereof. For the same reason, the appellant was not in position to impart any information to its client and hence the violation of Regulation 113(e). We however agree with the appellant that Regulation 113(o) came into existence 08.04.2010 and therefore it cannot be h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e value declared for claiming drawback benefit. Thereafter the past exports of the said exporters including M/s Reliance Overseas were also taken up for investigation. It was found that (i) Four shipping bills of M/s Reliance Overseas were filed by the appellant on 28.07.2009 and (ii) The exporter was non-existent. The Commissioner held that the appellant had not obtained authorisation from the exporter who was not in existence and thus violated Regulation 13(a), (d), (e) and (o) of the CHALR, 2004 and on that basis revoked the appellants license and forfeited the security deposit. 3. The appellant has contended that: (i) Shipping bills were filed in July, 2009 but investigations took place much later in 2011. (ii) It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant never met the exporter or got in touch with it and therefore violation of Regulation 13(a) (d) and (e) is clearly established. The timeline prescribed in Regulation 22 is not mandatory and is to be treated to be directory. 5. We have considered the contentions of both sides. It is evident from the facts and evidence on record and is not contested by the appellant that the appellant did not take any authorisation from the exporter and had never met it (i.e. exporter) or got in touch with it (i.e. the exporter) even on telephone. In such a scenario, it was obviously not possible for the appellant to claim that the documents were signed by the exporter. [In the case of P.P. Dutta (supra) it was recorded as a fact that the docu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was issued on 14.10.2011 while enquiry report was submitted on 19.01.2015 which is more than three years after the notice was issued under Regulation 22(1). Ld. DR has contended that the timeline prescribed under Regulation 22 should not be read to be mandatory. She pleaded that the timeline provision is more in the nature of a directory provision. We find that the Delhi High Court in the case of Schankar Clearing Forwarding (supra) has relied upon these timelines in the case involving suspension of license. The issue involved in the present case is not suspension of license but revocation thereof. However, even if the timeline is held to be directory and not mandatory, it can hardly be anybodys case that the prescribed timeline can be co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
