9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation 13(b), such officer had held that the conditions prescribed therein have been violated by the appellant. On the basis of inquiry report and upon analysis of the records, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded the findings in support of forfeiture of security deposit amount and for making fresh deposit by the appellant. Filing of shipping bills - claim of appellant is that the shipping bills were not filed by it - Held that:- The Learned Adjudicating Authority at Para 2 has furnished the reference of shipping bills, which were filed on behalf of the CHA-appellant. Thus, it cannot be said that no shipping bills were filed in respect of export of Red Sanders. Since the appellant is strictly guided under such instructions, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ations revealed that the consignments were attempted to be fraudulently exported on forged documents. On further investigation into the matter, it transpired that the appellant had filed nine shipping bills in the name of different parties. As per Facility Notice No. 41/2009 dated 10.07.2009 issued by Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House, Nhava Sheva, the CHA was duty bound to verify the shipping bills and bills of entry filed in EDI system on their PAN number and inform the department in case any discrepancy is noticed. The officers of SIIB observed that the appellant being a CHA did not exercise due deligence in respect of the fraudulent exports. Thus, the permission granted to the appellant to operate as CHA in Mumbai Customs under Regulation 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lar set of facts the appeal was allowed by the Tribunal, holding that penalty cannot be imposed for non-compliance of Facility Notice No. 41/2009. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. Upon inquiry into the fraudulent exportation of Red Sanders wood on forged documents, the charges were framed against the appellant that it had violated the conditions of Regulation 13(a) and 13(b) of the CHALR, 2004. The inquiry officer vide his letter dated 18.04.2011 had furnished the report, stating inter alia that with regard to contravention of Rule 13(a), no independent evidence was brought on record to prove the charges against the appellant. However, with regard to the charges framed under Regulation 13(b), such officer had held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
