9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. Weling could be produced by the appellant before this Bench on the pretext that DRI, Mumbai had taken away the original G card of said Sri Dattatray S. Weling during the course of investigation and till date the same had not been returned. To substantiate such fact/argument, a letter dated 16.10.19 has been produced before this Bench wherein it appears that said Sri Dattatray S. Weling on behalf of the appellant M/s. JD Impex had stated before the DRI authority of Mumbai about the fact of submission of original G card by him before them and he had also prayed for return of the same. We find that such letter has also been duly received by one Vikas Yadav, IO/DRI/MZU ON 16.10.19. During the course of hearing on 25.10.19 before this Bench, there is no averment on the part of the respondent authority that contents and facts of the said representation dated 16.10.19 of the appellant before DRI, Mumbai are not correct. It is also not argued by the respondent authority that the original G card of Sri Dattatray S. Weling is not with the DRI, Mumbai. However, we find no reason to disbelieve the Customs record verifying the fact that Sri Dattatray S. Weling was holding G card for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gned order revoking their CB Licence and forfeiture of their security deposit, is liable to be quashed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No.75678 of 2017 - FINAL ORDER NO. 76923/2019 - Dated:- 18-12-2019 - HON BLE SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON BLE SHRI BIJAY KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri Arijit Chakraborty, Advocate for the Appellant Shri K.K. Maity, Spl. Counsel for the Respondent ORDER PER P.K. CHOUDHARY : The appellants have preferred the instant appeal against an Order-in-Original dated 30.01.17 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (A A), Customs House, Kolkata whereby the Customs House Agent Licence No. J-36(PAN No. AAJFJ2496C) of the appellants have been revoked under Regulation 20(1) of CHALR, 2004 [now Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2013] and the full amount of security deposit of the appellants CHA has been ordered to be forfeited under Regulation 20(1) of CHALR, 2004 [now regulation 18 of CBLR, 2013].The appeal was initially decided vide Final Order No. FO/75441/2018 dated 19.03.18 by this Tribunal whereby the order of revocation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants CHA, there cannot be any violation of the said provisions of CBLR,2013 and hence, the impugned order should not sustain on merit. 3. Mr. Maiti, Ld. Spl. Counsel appearing for the respondent Customs authority submitted, per contra, that the entire act of clearance was undertaken by Sri Dattatray S. Weling by using the licence of appellant CHA against commission and the CHA had no knowledge w.r.t. the actual importer or its documents. Hence, the CHA was also not in a position to comply with the provisions of CBLR, 2013 during such import which was ultimately detected to be attempted smuggling of cigarette in guise of trolley bags by the importer. As such, there is serious violation of provisions of CBLR, 2013 as correctly held by the Adjudicating authority and he reiterated the findings of the Commissioner of Customs to support the impugned Order. 4. On a query from this Bench under Interim Order No. 94/2009 dated 26.09.19 in the present case, the Ld. Advocate for the appellants produced a verification letter under F. No. S/6-48/2010- Admin signed on 18.10.19 by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Customs Broker Section, New Customs House ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I/MZU ON 16.10.19. During the course of hearing on 25.10.19 before this Bench, there is no averment on the part of the respondent authority that contents and facts of the said representation dated 16.10.19 of the appellant before DRI, Mumbai are not correct. It is also not argued by the respondent authority that the original G card of Sri Dattatray S. Weling is not with the DRI, Mumbai. However, we find no reason to disbelieve the Customs record verifying the fact that Sri Dattatray S. Weling was holding G card for CB, M/s. JD Impex. Moreover, the number of the card being W-16 has also been correctly provided by Sri Dattatray S. Weling during his cross-examination before the Inquiry Officer and Asstt. Commissioner of Customs in the present proceeding. Hence, there is no doubt that said Dattatray S. Weling was employee and G Card holder of the appellant CB at the relevant point of time. 6. We find that admittedly, the import consignment of M/s. Jude s International INC was handled by Sri Dattatray S. Weling and admittedly all the communications and correspondences were made with the importer by said Sri Dattatray S. Weling. As we have already held that Sri Datt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
