9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder this Order-in-Original dated 22.01.2015 Adjudicating authority has revoked CHA licence No.S-85 of the Appellant under Regulation 20 of the Customs House agents Licensing Regulation 2004 (CHALR 2004) and also ordered for forfeiture of the whole security deposit held by the department against the said CHA licence. 2. Shri Arijit Chakraborty (Advocate) and Shri B.N.Chattopadhyay (Consultant) appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Arijit Chakraborty argued that the CHA work of Shipping Bill No.5616903 dated 08.04.2010 was taken by the Appellant. That as per the documents the consignment was declared as Mica Powder . That by a letter dated 12.04.2010 Appellant informed the Customs department that according to the information gathe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat appellant s CHA licence has been wrongly revoked. He made the Bench go through various relied upon statements to argue that there is no evidence that said authorization dated 06.04.2010 was not available with his client. 3. Shri K.C. Jena, ADC(AR) appearing for the Revenue argued that no authorization from the exporter was obtained by the appellant as the same was not produced before the investigating agency or the Enquiry Officer appointed under CHALR 2004. That the authorization letter dated 06.04.2010 is only a forged document, obtained afterwards while submitting reply to the show cause notice, as a cover up. Learned AR strongly defended the Adjudicating order dated 22.01.2015 passed by the adjudicating Commissioner. 4. Heard both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal dated 22.01.2015 was issued after more than 1 = years from appellant s reply dated 29.05.2013. It is also observed from the statement dated 21.04.2010 of Shri S.Biswas, Partner of the appellant that it is no where stated that the said authorization was not obtained from the exporter. Revenue is thus not able to establish that authorization dated 06.04.2010 was not existing with the appellant. 5. It is not the case of the Revenue that CHA had the knowledge of contraband nature of goods being carried out in the said container. Even the examining staff could not detect the concealment during first examination. Second examination was done by the examining staff only as a result of intimation given by the appellant. It is observed from cro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
