9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 741X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sustain - Also, it is not expected from the CHA to physically verify the goods. There is no other charge on the CHA that they were knowingly involved in the export of prohibited goods therefore even though it is established that the goods attempted to be exported were prohibited goods but responsibility for such wrong doing lies with the exporter and not with the CHA - suspension of license not warranted. Penalty was imposed with reference to the suspension of the licence, however there is no provision under CHALR, 2004 to impose penalty under Section 114(i) of customs Act, 1962. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. C/409/2010 - ORDER No. A/86756/2018 - Dated:- 8-6-2018 - Hon ble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce and imposed penalty of ₹ 6,18,700/- under Section 114(i) of Custom Act. This Tribunal vide stay order dated 17-1-2011 stayed the suspension of the licence and also held that there is no provision in law to impose penalty on CHA in the proceedings initiated under CHALR 2004. The stay order is reproduced below:- 5. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that the suspension of the CHA licence and the penalty imposed on them are prima facie, unwarranted. The Joint Commissioner s order which was passed in adjudication of the show cause notice issued to the exporter indicates that the CHA was not informed of the dubious intention of the exporter. We have not been told that the above finding of the Joint Commissioner in favour o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs, Headquarters, Nagpur addressed to Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) CESTAT Mumbai confirming that no proceedings against CHA was initiated under Regulation 22 of CHALR 2004. It was also mentioned in the said letter that licence of CHA was being renewed on yearly basis and in the year 2017 which has been renewed for a period of 10 years. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 5. We find that firstly no proceedings were carried out under CHALR 2004 for revocation of licence during the last 8 years. Even though this Tribunal has stayed the suspension of the licence ordered by the impugned order but nothing prevented Commissioner to proceed under CHALR, 2004 therefore commissioner has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
