9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of natural justice has been violated in so far as the relied upon documents have not been given to the appellant moreover, despite repeated request of cross examination of witness, the same was not allowed - It was also argued that charges based on the offence note from Chennai Customs are misplaced as the said matter is sub-judice and is pending before the Tribunal at Chennai. Another ground raised by the appellant is failure of revenue to observe the time limit prescribed under Regulation 17 of the CBLR, 2018. The appellant has particularly relied on the alleged violation of Regulation 17(1), 17(5) 17(7) of CBLR, 2018. It is seen that there are decisions of Tribunal as well as High Courts which hold opposite view. There are decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per DGFT Notification No.35 (RE-2012)/2009-2014 dated 28.02.2013 and requires mandatory authorization from DGFT. DRI had initiated investigations and had alleged that one Shri Pratik Gautambhai Babaria had been importing the said goods in the name of various firms such as (i) M/s. PYPYE Techserv Private Ltd. (ii) M/s. Skylark Office Machines (iii) M/s. Dark Line Copier (iv) M/s. Copy Care Enterprise (v) M/s. Vardhman Overseas and (vi) M/s. Trade World. It was alleged that the appellant had acted as Customs Broker in respect of import consignments of M/s. Vardhman Overseas and M/s. Trade World. 2.2 Premises of M/s. Trade World were searched on 16.03.2018 by DRI and statement of Shri Pankaj Moreshvar Dhanmeher, Proprietor of M/s. Trade Wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvestigation was extended to the appellant and statement of Shri Jayanti Mohanbhai Waghela an employee was also recorded. Statement of appellant was also recorded on 06.03.2018. On the basis of the above investigation, charges were leveled for violation of Regulation 10(a), 10(d) 10(n) under Regulation 16, 17 18 of CBLR, 2018 was initiated. 3.1 The first charge leveled against the noticee for violation of Regulation 10(a) of CBLR, 2018 which reads as follows:- The Customs Broker shall obtain an authorization from each of the companies, firms or individuals by whom he is for the time being employed as a Customs Broker and produce such authorization whenever required by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was alleged that the goods could not have been imported without authorization from DGFT. It was alleged that the appellant failed to ensure compliance of the mandatory nature of such authorization from DGFT. The defense of the appellant was that they had advised the importers to obtain authorization however, filed the Bills of Entries on fastrack basis. The said Bills of Entries were assessed by the proper officer and issued out of charge. The impugned order holds that the appellant should have ensured the compliance in respect of authorization before filing the Bill of Entry. It was alleged that he failed to bring the matter to the notice to the concerned jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Customs as require ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the search operation by DRI on the premises of M/s. Trade World and M/s. Vardhman Overseas, it was found that the said firms were dummy firms being used for import of old and used Photocopiers/MFDDs. The impugned order holds that the KYC Documents were not obtained directly from the imports but through another person. On the basis of above assertion, it was held that the appellant had assisted dummy/fake importers in importing restricted items. It was also pointed out that in a different case against the appellant in Chennai Commissionerate also the appellant had failed to obtain the KYC Documents from the importers. In the said case, it was pointed out that the penalty of ₹ 2 Lacs was imposed on the appellant for violation of Regulat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceedings on the ground of failure to follow principles of natural justice. 4.1 It was pointed out that cross examination of witness has not been provided. The appellant had sought cross examination of witnesses as can be seen from Para 10.1 of Inquiry Report but the same was not allowed. 4.2 It was argued that the principles of natural justice has been violated in so far as the relied upon documents have not been given to the appellant moreover, despite repeated request of cross examination of witness, the same was not allowed. It was further argued that the Show Cause Notice issued by DRI is without authority in view of the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. CANON INDIA.-2021 (376) ELT 3 (S.C.). It was also argued t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
