9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has almost a permanent effect, was not warranted at all - the inquiry in this case was completed fairly beyond the period of 9 months stipulated by the CHA Regulations of 2004 - time limitation not applicable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - CUSAA 2/2016 - - - Dated:- 3-1-2017 - MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. NAJMI WAZIRI JJ. Appellant Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Mr. Ishaan Madaan, Mr. Subhiksh Vasudev and Mr.Chaitanya Puri, Advs. Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Bansal, Mr. Akhil Kulshrestha and Ms. Seema Dolo, Advs. S. RAVINDRA BHAT (ORAL) 1. Admit. 2. Following question of law arises for consideration: Did the CESTAT fall into error in upholding the revocation of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s framed thereunder. The Inquiry Report held the petitioner guilty. Based upon the findings in the Inquiry Report, the competent officer passed the order in original whereby the appellant s CHA licence was revoked and its security forfeited. The CESTAT upheld this order. 4. Mr. Raj Shekhar Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the findings of the order in original of the CESTAT cannot be sustained, it is submitted that the Inquiry Officer completely ignored the relevant materials such as the investigation report unequivocally indicated that export house in fact was in existence. The learned counsel relied upon the letter written by the Narcotics Control Bureau of the Central Government to the Canadian High Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther decisions of this Court such as Shankar Clearing Forwarding v. C.C. (Import General): 2012 (283) E.L.T. 349 (Del.) and by Madras High Court in Sanco Trans Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Sea Port/Imports, Chennai : (2015) 322 E.L.T. 170 (Mad.) 6. Mr. Amit Bansal, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the impugned order pertains only to pure question of fact which could not warrant re-appreciation by this Court. It is submitted that the fact that prohibited items were exported cannot be disputed. In the circumstances, the petitioner was issued with the Show Cause Notice after a slight delay itself was not damaging or fatal to the Revenue s case having regard to the gravity of the misconduct. The learned counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... International and M/s Damini International]. The material on record shows that the Registration Certificate of the three entities as well as IEC members were available and had in fact been produced by the appellant in the course of the inquiry proceedings. However, the Enquiry Officer appears to have completely overlooked them and returned the finding that such inquiries have not been made nor has any material been disclosed. What is more, the Enquiry Officer even appears to have completely given a go by not disclosing and not discussing the letter addressed by the Narcotics Bureau, Government of India to the Canadian High Commission on 21.12.2011 whereby an exception was made that an investigation was going on and an inquiry had been made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
