9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould have given a copy of the authorization at the earliest but at the same time the authorization dated 06.04.2010 has not been proved by the Revenue to be forged. Appellant CHA licence was not suspended for nearly five years from the date of detection in April 2010 and no irregularity was committed by the appellant till the impugned Adjudication order was passed - appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. CA-75411/15 - ORDER NO.FO/A/75736/2016 - Dated:- 1-8-2016 - Shri H. K. Thakur, Member(Technical) And Shri P. K. Choudhary, Member(Judicial) Shri Arijit Chakraborty, Advocate Shri B.N.Chattopadhyay, Consultant for the Appellant Shri K.C.Jena, ADC(AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Shri H. K. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstructions from AC(NSD). It is the case of the learned Advocate that appellant has been penalized only under Regulation 13(a) of the CHALR 2004 for producing no proof of obtaining authorization from the exporter. Learned Advocate made the Bench go through a letter dated 06.04.2010 from the exporter M/s.Satya Narayan Impex (P) Ltd., Giridih 815301 authorising his client as CHA to handle export consignment of Mica Powder . That in the entire investigation it was never admitted by the CHA that such authorization was not available with his client. That a copy of the authorization was enclosed with their reply to the show cause notice dated 29.05.2013. That adjudicating authority neither doubted the authenticity of this document dated 06.04.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of Customs. 4.1 As per the above Regulation a CHA was required to obtain an authorization from the exporter for whom he was working. Appellant argued that the said authorization dated 06.04.2010 was available with them but could not be produced during the investigation. It is observed from reply dated 29.05.2013 to the show cause notice that appellant not only made a submission to that effect in para 4 but also enclosed a copy of the same. Learned AR appearing on behalf of the Revenue did argue that the said letter is forged but no such findings are recorded by the Adjudicating authority. Adjudicating authority has only given a finding that no proof of obtaining authorization from the client was produced, when in reply dated 29.05.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e are of the considered opinion that authorization letter dated 06.04.2010 was available with the appellants. There is no doubt that appellant should have given a copy of the authorization at the earliest but at the same time the authorization dated 06.04.2010 has not been proved by the Revenue to be forged. Appellant CHA licence was not suspended for nearly five years from the date of detection in April 2010 and no irregularity was committed by the appellant till the impugned Adjudication order was passed. Accordingly, appeal filed by the appellant is required to be allowed by setting aside revocation order with respect to CHA licence No.S-85 and forfeiture of security ordered under Ordre-in-Original dated 22.01.2015. 7. Appeal filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
