9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms Broker at Delhi Customs Stations, in terms of Regulation 23 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulation 2013. The applicant moved the Hon'ble Delhi High Court against the said order. The High Court vide their order dated 1.3.16 permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file statutory appeals before the Tribunal. The Hon'ble High Court directed that in the event of such appeal being filed within 3 day, the CESTAT shall decide the stay petition within a period of 3 weeks. Accordingly, the applicant filed the appeal on 2.3.2016 along with the application for stay. 2. After having heard both the sides and on perusal of the appeal records, we find that the appeal itself can be disposed of as granting the stay will v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound, the Commissioner of Customs (Gen), New Delhi issued the present impugned order prohibiting the appellant from working as Customs Broker at New Delhi Customs stations. We find the impugned order is being challenged of various grounds namely:- A. No notice was issued or hearing was held before such action was taken by the original authority. Even post decisional hearing was also not granted inspite of specific request; B. There is no justification to take such drastic action in respect of import which has happened in 2008, when there is further finding by the Customs authority about the role of the appellant; C. The act or omission on the part of one of their employee in his personal capacity cannot result in the adverse action a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d misdemeanor of 2008, the prohibition was issued in February, 2016. This too is based on recommendation in the adjudication order under Customs Act. The impugned prohibition order records definite findings without any separate inquiry or opportunity to the appellant to explain their position. In a similar set of facts involving this very appellant, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed as below: "17. In the present case, the Court noted that the CCIG proceeded to adjudicate the SCN in question, as far as Respondent No.1 is concerned, without recording the statement of anyone on behalf of Respondent No. 1. Further respondent No. 1 was not confronted with the statement made by Mr. G S Prince. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Sanjay Kantawala, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fy the imposition of penalty under Section 12 and 114 AA of the Act unless knowledge of the illegal acts of agent / employee is able to be attributed to his employer/ principal, i.e. Respondent No. 1." 7. The Tribunal had occasion to examine a similar issue in respect of same appellant. It was held that "whether the agent was authorized expressly or impliedly by the owners, the owner shall also be liable for the actions of an agent. In the present case, no evidence has come on record that the appellant authorized Mr. G S Prince expressly or impliedly". We note that the impugned order also held the appellant responsible for the acts of Mr. G S Prince, G card holder at New Delhi office. As already recorded, no investigation was made or state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
