9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich the post decisional hearing will not carry any conviction - the impugned order passed did not comply with the basic requirements of principles of natural justice and apparently the required particulars are not available to the Original Authority for examination even for an order of prohibition - appeal allowed. - Customs Appeal No.51519 of 2017 - C/A/58122/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 27-11-2017 - Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri R. Ballabh, Consultant for the appellant. Shri R.K. Manjhi, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent. ORDER Per. B. Ravichandran The appeal is against order dated 19/07/2017 of Commissioner of Customs (General), New ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfirmed by the Commissioner did not give the reason for such prohibition. They were charged with the offence of undertaking clearance of export consignments without due verification of the exporters with necessary document. In spite of their specific request to inform the name of such exporters for which the appellants are charged for violation of CBLR, the Revenue did not disclose any details. Effectively they could not explain their side in the absence of any particulars provided by the Revenue. The learned Counsel submitted that the whole process leading to order dated 17/07/2017 is vitiated by non-application of mind as well as violation of principles of natural justice. He prayed for setting aside the order of prohibition. 3. The l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had dealt with in a manner not in conformity with the CBLR, 2013. We note that the said particulars were called for by the Commissioner from the DRI. However, no details or particulars are apparently made available to the appellant. It appears even the Original Authority is not having such particulars, as could be seen from the impugned order. In such circumstances, we find force in the submission made by the appellant that the post decisional hearing did not offer any opportunity to the appellant to submit their side of the case. As the exact nature of allegation is not known to the appellant no defence submission could be made. The learned AR submitted that Shri Surender Gupta admitted of having dealt with 20 exporting firms through the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
