9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1064X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not kept the Department informed and thus they have violated provisions of Regulations 10(d), 10(e) and 10(m) of CBLR, 2018. It is found that order of suspension was issued after about a year of recording of the statement of the accused - the action like suspension needs to be immediate and any delay, in this regard, would give an impression that the action was not warranted. In this case, the Department has not shown any case of urgency to suspend the license of the custom broker. The suspension of license of a custom broker, placed on a similar footing, alleged to have involved in the same offence committed by the importer at Mundra, has been revoked. The justice demands that when the allegations are common, action taken should be simi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (JUDICIAL) AND MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri O. P. Khanduja, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Manoj Kumar, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER The appellants M/s Yash Logisys are custom broker. On the basis of an intelligence received that one Shri Hardik Shah was importing consignment of Whey Proteins and was undervaluing the same, various premises were searched and in that context the statement of proprietor of appellant custom broker Shri Nikunj Mehta were recorded. On completion of investigation, Department proceeded, inter alia, against the appellant alleging that the appellants have failed to discharge their obligations as per Regulation 10(d), 10(e) and 10(m) of Custom Broker Regulatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed 84 bills of entry on behalf of the importer, the appellant has filed only 12 bills of entry; the differential treatment meted out to the appellant is not justified. He further submits that vide letter dated 05.05.2021 Commissioner appointed an inquiry officer under regulation 17(1) of CBLR, 2018; however, Commissioner had not appointed any presenting officer; in terms of the provisions of CBLR, 2018, Commissioner required to issue show cause notice within 90 days from date of receipt of the offence report; in the instant case the notice was received by the appellant after 121 days and inquiry is yet to commence even after a lapse of more than 300 days. He submits that because of the high handed action of the Commissioner around 10 em ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for issuance of show cause notice under CBLR, 2018 have not been followed. On these two issues, we find that principles governing the implementation of Customs Act may not be equated to the provisions under CBLR, 2018 although CBLR, 2018 flows from the Customs Act, 1962. We find that the custom broker is bestowed with certain facilities as well as responsibilities, as far as customs clearance is concerned. We find that High Court have interpreted, the provisions regarding the issuance of show cause notice within 90 days of the receipt of offence report, differentially while some High Courts have held that the time line is mandatory, somehow held that it is only directionary. However, we are not going into the merits of the case and limit o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
