9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so on record that the said order of the Cestat, New Delhi has been accepted by the Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata vide letter dated 04.12.2017 . No other evidence regarding involvement of appellant is on record before the respondent Commissioner - there is no justification for revoking the CHA licence of the appellant at the strength of allegation contained in the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi, which has been set aside by Hon’ble CESTAT, New Delhi and Revenue has not preferred any appeal against the order. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/78279/2018 - FO/76822/2018 - Dated:- 19-9-2018 - SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAY KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri Shri S. K.Meheta, Advocat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirming the prohibition, the respondent Commissioner of Customs (Airport Admin.), Customs House, Kolkata suspended the licence of the appellant vide CB Order No.04/2017 dated 31.07.2017. Thereafter show cause notice was issued to the appellant by the respondent Commissioner of Customs (A A), Customs House, Kolkata under Regulation 20(1) of CBLR, 2014 and an Inquiry Officer was appointed. The Inquiry Officer submitted its report dated 26.12.2017 to the respondent Commissioner. The appellant also submitted his representation before the Commissioner of Customs(Airport Admin.), Kolkata. Based on the submission by the appellant the CHA licence of the appellant was revoked by the respondent Commissioner of Customs (Airport Admin.), Kolk ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Yadav who used to act as intermediary in between the exporters and the appellant. That Shri Vijoy Goel and Shri Yogesh Yadav as intermediary provided the export documents alongwith import export code number of the exporters issued by DGFT, New Delhi Letter of Authority of the exporters issued in favour of the appellant and KYC documents of the exporter as per CBEC Circular No.9/2010-Cus dated 08.04.2010. The appellant diligently acted on the basis of required documents, as prescribed under the Customs Act 1962, as well as under the Customs Broker Licencing Regulation 2013, for such export assignment. The Shipping Bills with claim of Drawback under Section 75 of the Customs Act 1962 were processed in EDI System and exports were allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sionerate for violation of Regulation 11(a), 11(n) and 17(9) of the Customs Broker Licencing Regulation 2013 on the plea that (i) CB firm has not obtained the Letter of Authority directly from the exporter in terms of Regulation 11(a) of the CBLR 2013, and therefore violated the same, (ii) Also they have not physically verified the functioning of the exporters at their declared address and (iii) Shri Surendra Gupta, Manager of Delhi Office has handled the customs documents without any authority from Customs Department. It was held that the appellant is fully responsible for the act of their employee namely Shri Surendra Gupta and thus violated the Regulation 17(9) of CBLR, 2013. 6. The appellant moved to the Hon ble Cestat, New Delhi aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent. The respondent Commissioner provided a copy of statements of Shri Surendra Gupta, Shri Manish Gupta and Shri Amit Mallick recorded by DRI under Section 108 of the Customs Act 1962 but no other particulars of the exporters were provided. It was also submitted to the respondent Commissioner that the Hon ble Cestat, New Delhi has set aside the prohibition order vide its order dated 22.11.2017 which was the basis of suspension of their licence and issuance of show cause notice and Inquiry Report has been set aside and therefore the suspension of licence of the appellant need to be reviewed ignoring the inquiry report which was not in their favour. The respondent Commissioner have ignored the finding of the Hon ble Cestat, New Delhi setti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of the Cestat, New Delhi has been accepted by the Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata vide letter dated 04.12.2017 . No other evidence regarding involvement of appellant is on record before the respondent Commissioner. In view of the above we find that there is no justification for revoking the CHA licence of the appellant at the strength of allegation contained in the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi, which has been set aside by Hon ble CESTAT, New Delhi and Revenue has not preferred any appeal against the order. . 9. In view of the above we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal, with consequential benefit if any. (Operative portion of the order have already been pronounced in the open court.) - - TaxTMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
