9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 720X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the absence of at least a prima facie case indicating the role of the appellant in various frauds, suspension of license will be harsh and unjustified. Further, more importantly, it is found that though the suspension was confirmed on 20.11.15, till date no show cause notice has been issued to the appellant. The time limit as prescribed in CBLR 2013, has apparently not been followed. In the pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 20.11.15 of Commissioner of Customs (Gen), New Delhi confirming the suspension of Customs Broker license of the appellant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the G Card holder employee of the appellant was alleged to have been involved in serious fraud of manipulating the value of export goods and using the license for import of paper / paper products by various importers. The ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elief now in the absence of completion of full inquiry and initiation of proceedings against them. The admitted facts of the case are that the role of G Card Holder (Shri Sharafat Hussain) has not been brought out till now in the inquiry. This much has been mentioned in the order itself. The impugned order states that exact nature of collusion or otherwise with the importer remains to be determ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 22(1) is applicable for issuing both suspension order and revocation order. However Regulation 20(2) authorizes the Commissioner of Customs to suspend the licence of a CHA in emergent situations without following the procedure under Regulation 22(1). It is very obvious that immediate suspension of licence is permitted only when an enquiry is pending is contemplated. The non obstante clause Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent activity undertaken by employee and G card holder of such CHA. The Tribunal held that if the employee had suo moto acted on his own for personal benefit beyond the scope of duty, the employer cannot be penalized. In the present case, the role of G card holder and the involvement of appellant either directly or through his G card holder are yet to be clearly alleged / established as no progress ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
