9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ni Crafts, Jaipur (100% EOU). The said goods were declared as "Heald Frame" (spare parts of weaving machine) having value of Rs. 5,66,862/- attracting „nil‟ customs duty, availing benefit of Notification No. 52/2003-Cu for BCD and 2/2008-CE (Sl. No. 62) for CVD purposes. The goods were assessed to duty as per the declaration and Rajinder P. Kapur was permitted to clear the goods from Customs Area. The officers of SIIB intercepted the said consignment outside the customs area. During the course of inquiry, a person namely Sh. Prashun Jain, appellant herein, has come forward with Gate Pass of the consignment before the officers. He stated that the said consignment was cleared by Shri Biplav Kumar of M/s Rajinder P. Kapur, CHA from the customs authorities and is known to the appellant, he met the appellant on 19.11.10 outside the customs area and requested for transportation of the subject shipment to the destination by handling the appellant the gate pass, as Shri Biplav had to attend to some other commitment. Thereafter, the officers of SIIB examined the said shipment cleared vide B/E 168385 and found the same to be Micro SD Cards of 2 GB and RAM of 1 GB. As the goods we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own to the concerned authorities even though, said authorities very well knew the fact that appellant's CHA Licence would be expiring on 31.12.2015 and, under the circumstances, he couldn't even apply for renewal of the same. Finally, the appellant was once again heard on 02.12.2015 and orders were reserved. But, the decision of the Inquiry Officer on the said hearing came only on 06.02.2016 i.e. after the end of validity of CHA Licence of the appellant which was valid only upto 31.12.2015. Upon receipt of the Inquiry Report dated 06.02.2016, personal hearing was fixed before the learned Commissioner on 15.03.2016 which was duly attended by the appellant and orders were reserved for taking final decision. The then learned Commissioner passed order-in-original no. 20/SM/Policy/2016 dated 13.04.2016 and revoked appellant's CHA Licence No. R-91/2006 under Regulations 20 and 22(7) of CHALR 2004 read with Regulation 18 and 20(7) of CBLR, 2013.Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original dated 13.04.2016 the appellant had filed Appeal being C/52012/2016-Cus(DB) before this Tribunal, New Delhi which vide Final Order No. C/A/55971/2016 dated 21.12.2016, had set aside the Order-in-Original date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order-in-original no. 55/KB/Policy/2017 dated 04.09.17 was passed by the authority suspending the Customs Broker Licence of the appellant. Subsequent to suspension of CB Licence, the appellant was granted hearing in terms of the mandate of Regulation 19(2) of the CBLR 2013. In the said proceedings, the appellant had filed its reply dated 18.09.17 before the learned Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi and reiterated his stand that even though he was not required to file undertaking in the form of affidavit, still the departmental officials insisted for such undertaking and, further reiterated that none of the facts regarding pendency of criminal proceedings as well as imposing of penalty under Custom Act was ever suppressed by the appellant from the department. Knowing all the said facts, his CB Licence was restored by the competent authority. The learned Commissioner confirmed the suspension of CB Licence of the appellant vide Order-in-Original No. 60/MK/Policy/2017 dated 27.09.17. Thereafter, the appellant was issued a Show Cause Notice No. 34/2017 dated 14.11.17 for failure to comply with provisions of Regulation 5(d) and 5(e) of CBLR 2013. The appellant also submitted W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. 15.12.2015. 5. It was the contention of the learned Counsel that the said affidavit has been filed at the instance of the department inasmuch as the appellant never requested for renewal of licence. It was submitted that the learned Commissioner has failed to appreciate the first letter dated 01.01.17 written by the appellant subsequent to the Final Order dated 21.12.16 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal setting aside the order of the learned Commissioner cancelling the CB Licence of the appellant. In the said letter dated 01.01.17, the appellant had nowhere prayed for renewal of his licence and, in fact, the appellant could not request for renewal of his licence as the original validity period of the same had already expired during the pendency of appellant's appeal before this Tribunal, against the cancellation order. It was later on, that the department, without any requirement, insisted the appellant to apply for renewal of his licence and to file declaration in the form of affidavit, as per the requirement of Regulation 5(d) and 5(e) of the CBLR 2013. 6. It was also submitted that the appellant was not required to give any affidavit in terms of Regulation 5(d) and 5(e) of CB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cable to those persons who already had licence. It was further submitted that Regulation 9 uses the word 'licensee', which gives the liberty to the CHA licensee for renewal of licence. This makes it clear that Regulation 5 is not applicable to the appellant. 7. Further, the provisions of renewal of licence under Regulation 9, will also not apply as the same is applicable in the case of existing licence. 8. It was further submitted that the appellant is out of business since 15.12.10, when his CHA licence [as it was then known was suspended and later on cancelled vide order-in-original dated 13.04.16. However, the appellant could not start its business activities even after the said order was set aside by this Hon'ble Tribunal vide Final Order dated 21.12.16, as the departmental authorities insisted the appellant to file a declaration, even though the same was not required to be filed and, despite knowing fully well the actual facts and circumstances of the case, with a clear intention of depriving the appellant to restart his business activities as CHA taking advantage of the situation, cancelled the CB Licence. The impugned order is seriously affecting the livelihood of the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
