9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18 is held to have been established beyond doubt - the appellant has failed to observe obligation (d), (e), and (f) of Regulation 14 of CBLR. Renewal of License - appellant has challenged the same on the ground that he cannot be vexed twice for the same set of facts - Held that:- The said ground is not sustainable in the given circumstances as non renewal of license under Order 9 Sub-Rule 2 of CBLR and the revocation thereof are two different things. For this reason, the ground taken by appellant that the license has not been revoked but the suspension thereof, does not extend an unfettered right to the CHA to seek renewal of the said license at the time of its expiry without meeting the mandatory criteria for the same. It is apparent fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice to the appellant calling them upon as to why the aforesaid license shall not be cancelled/ revoked, security furnished by the appellant shall not be forfeited and the penalty be not imposed under Regulation 18 read with Regulation 22 of CBLR for knowingly submitting the incorrect details/ custom declarations while getting cleared five consignments of M/s Spectrum Enterprises since March, 2014 without verifying the identity of the importer. The said Show Cause Notice was adjudicated vide Order of Principal Commissioner bearing No. 985 dated 02.02.2016 vide which revocation of the appellant s license and forfeiture of security deposit of the custom broker was declined however the penalty of ₹ 50,000/- under Regulation 22 read with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... different matter if Order of suspension was upheld after establishing guilt of petitioner by following the prescribed procedure. Denial of renewal on same set of unsubstantiated allegations is impressed upon to be not sustainable also for the reason that no person can be vexed twice on same set of facts. Ld. Advocate has also relied upon Falcon Air Cargo and Travels (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2002 (140) ELT 8 (Del.) to impress upon that it has been clearly held by Hon ble High Court in the said case that where there are no definite findings recorded and the judgement is non reasoned, pronounced without dealing with the contentions of the petitioner, it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice and such an Order is not sustaina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om House Agent. Hon ble Apex Court in the case Commissioner of Customs Vs. M/s K. M. Ganatra Company 2016 TIOL 13 (S.C.) Cus has held: The CHA occupies a very important position in the Custom House. The Customs procedures are complicated. The importers have to deal with a multiplicity of agencies viz. Carriers, custodians like BPT as well as the Customs. The importer would find it impossible to clear his goods through these agencies without wasting valuable energy and time. The CHA is supposed to safeguard the interests of both the importers and the Customs. A lot of trust is kept in CHA by the importers/ exporters as well as by the Government Agencies. To ensure appropriate discharge of such trust, the relevant regulations are fram ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llenged the same on the ground that he cannot be vexed twice for the same set of facts. But we are of the opinion that said ground is not sustainable in the given circumstances as non renewal of license under Order 9 Sub-Rule 2 of CBLR and the revocation thereof are two different things. For this reason, the ground taken by appellant that the license has not been revoked but the suspension thereof, does not extend an unfettered right to the CHA to seek renewal of the said license at the time of its expiry without meeting the mandatory criteria for the same. It is apparent from CBL Regulations that the provision under which the renewal can be sought is again Regulation 5 only where a fresh license can be obtained by the applicant with the on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s already held above, the non renewal and revocation are two separate things under two distinct provisions of the Regulation, question of appellant to have been vexed twice, as is raised by him, is not sustainable. The authorities relied upon by the appellant are also not held applicable to the present facts and circumstances because present is not the case of unsubstantiated allegations. Order dated 02.02.2016 has already held the presence of mensrea with the appellant while committing the alleged misconduct. 10. In view of the entire above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the Order under challenge. The same is hereby upheld and Appeal is accordingly rejected. [ Pronounced in the open Court on 31.07.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
