9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d requested the appellant to submit their representation, if any, within 30 days in terms of Regulation 20(6) of CBLR, 2013. There is no indication or reference to any possible difference of opinion with reference to the enquiry report as entertained by the Original Authority. In other words, the enquiry report which exonerated the appellant totally, was communicated to the appellant for representation. Apparently, the appellant gave a reply reiterating their defence and supporting the findings of the Inquiry Officer. There is nothing to indicate that the appellant has been put to notice on the disagreement of the Original Authority with any part of the enquiry report. Therefore, it is clear that the present impugned order issued without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, by show cause notice dated 16/4/2005 proceedings were initiated against the appellant under the provisions of Customs Brokers Licencing Regulation (CBLR), 2013 for revoking their licence for various violations of the said Regulations. The present impugned order was issued in conclusion of the said proceedings. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant mainly submitted that :- (i) the appellant have not violated any provisions of CBLR, 2013. This is clearly evident as per the enquiry report dated 30/06/2015 submitted by the Deputy Commissioner as per the directions of the Commissioner in the show cause notice dated 16/4/2015. The Inquiry Officer has examined in detail all the 4 charges leveled against the appellant and came to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been passed within the period of 90 days. 4. We have heard both the sides and examined the appeal records. We find that out of 4 charges leveled against the appellant the Original Authority agreed with the enquiry report on first two charges and held the appellant has not violated any provisions as alleged. The present appeal deals with only the revocation of licence on the view of the Original Authority in disagreement with the enquiry report regarding the 3rd and 4th charge. These two allegations are relating to the provisions of Regulation 11 (d) and 11 (e) of CBLR, 2013. They deal with advice to the client to comply with the provisions of Customs Act and exercise of due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any information wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Since the Commissioner expressed his disagreement with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in their entirety, the Regulations though permit him to hold a de novo inquiry, that could be only after due notice to the respondent in that behalf. In other words, a notice indicating the disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the extent of such disagreement and the prima facie reasons for such disagreement, ought to be communicated and that notice should be served on the agent like the respondent. After such an agent responds to the notice and if the Commissioner is further satisfied that the explanation does not deserve acceptance, he is free to hold a de novo inquiry and into all charges. This is not merely a matter of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
