9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a) of the CB Regulations do not appear to have been made out, particularly in view of the admission by Mr. Sachin Gulati that he did meet the employees of the Appellant. Correspondingly, even the ingredients of the Regulation 11(d) of the CB Regulations, do not appear to have been made out. The CESTAT has rendered a finding on the violation of Regulation 11(d) only on the basis that the Appellant had not even met the actual importer. It is plain that the plea of the Department that there ought to have been both a revocation of the license and forfeiture of security, since both go together, has been negated by this Court. In other words, even according to the Department, if there is no cancellation of licence then there cannot be a forfe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant was issued a show cause notice ( SCN ) dated 28th July, 2016 by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ( DRI ). In the said SCN, it was alleged that M/s. Unisys Enterprises, of which Mr. Sachin Gulati and Ms. Akriti Jain were partners had engaged in the import of nutritional supplements in violation of the FSSAI Act, 2006, through the present Appellant. Specific to the Appellant, the allegation was that the CB did not undertake due diligence by verifying the antecedents of the importer and the premises from which the importer was operating, and had thus violated, inter alia, Regulations 11(a) and 11(d) of the CB Regulations. 3. Following on the above development, a separate SCN dated 31st August, 2016 was issued by the Customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Tribunal (CESTAT), there appears to have been a cursory appraisal of the record by the CESTAT. In paragraph 9 of the impugned order, only one part of the statement of the partners of M/s. Unisys Enterprises, that they were not aware of the details of imports, and had never met Mr. Sameer Jha, has been taken note of. The subsequent statements of the partners, particularly Mr. Sachin Gulati, admitting to have met the employees of the Appellant, have not been noticed. In fact, the findings in the enquiry report have not been noticed. 7. The Court is of the view that this was a selective reading of the evidence on record, which actually shows that all the parties were actually acting in consort. Be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s well as he CESTAT appeared to have imposed almost impossibly high standards upon the CB holder who is expected to not only verify the correctness of the documents with reference to the publically available material but also carry out independent investigations. No doubt, the CB holder acts as an interface between the Customs Authorities and facilitates the task of a consignee/importer yet to expect such an independent agent - who is not a public servant or in any way connected with the customs department to act as a public trustee (an expression used by the Commissioner), is beyond what is contemplated. 9. With the dismissal of the above appeal, it is plain that the plea of the Department that there ought to have been both a revocatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
