9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 04/2018, issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad. He was allowed to operate at Bangalore Customs as per Rule 9(2) of Custom House Agents Regulation, 2004 (CHALR) (Regulation 7 (2) of CBLR 2013). The DRI officers investigated several cases of fraudulent exports made with a malafide intention to claim undue drawback and other export benefits. Since the appellant was found to have filed the export documents With Customs authorities in respect of some of the fraudulent exports, the Additional Director General DRI, Bangalore forwarded the Investigation Report to the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore. After consideration of the Investigation Report, Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore found that the appellant had sold / transferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of enquiry report under CBLR 2013. No such show-cause notice has been received by the appellant even though the period of 90 days is already limits under CBLR, the proceedings against the appellant should be quashed and the Customs Broker should be allowed to operate. iii. He specifically relied on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Patriot Freight Logistics System Vs. CC, Chennai [2017 (350) ELT 59 (Mad.)]. He submitted that even in the case of prohibition order by the Commissioner of Customs, under Regulation 23, the Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that the principles of natural justice should be observed and the Customs Broker is entitled to a hearing before such prohibition order is passed. iv. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Customs, Hyderabad, the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore is not the disciplinary authority for the appellant. Any proceedings to be initiated against the appellant under CBLR will have to be done by the Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad. The present stage of the proceedings initiated, if any, by the Licensing Authority is not forthcoming from the records. The learned counsel for the appellant has however assailed that no further steps have been taken by the Customs authorities under CBLR 2013. 7. From the impugned Order of Prohibition, we note that, prima facie, certain serious violations of CBLR 2013 are evident inasmuch as the appellant, Customs Broker, appears to have allowed M/s. V.D. Logistics (as seen from the state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
