9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 1050X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ciples of natural justice and that no opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent is perverse. It is not in dispute that the license was valid up to October 16, 2014 and it had expired when OIO was passed. The Commissioner has recorded that no application for renewal of the license was received from the Customs Broker. If this were to be the factual matrix, the direction issued by the CESTAT to consider the application is also perverse. Appeal allowed. - CSTA NO.9 OF 2019 - - - Dated:- 10-2-2023 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA For the Appellant : By Shri. Amit Anand Deshpande, Advocate) For the Respondent : By Shri. A.K. Jairaj, Advocate [Absent]) JUDGMENT P.S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d goods were not declared. Therefore, the consignments were seized by the Customs Officers. 4. The Joint Commissioner vide Order dated September 10, 2014 suspended the license for violation of Rule 19(1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 [ CBLR, 2013 ] . The OIO [Order-in-Original dated 10.09.2014] confirmed the suspension and directed that the suspension shall continue until further orders. By a further OIO dated April 13, 2015, the Commissioner confirmed the evasion of customs duty and recorded that since the license had already expired, revocation was not ordered. By the said order, the security deposit was forfeited and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed. By the impugned order, CESTAT [Customs Excise and Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent. 6. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by Shri. Deshpande and perused the records. 7. Undisputed facts of the case are, respondent is the holder of Customs House Agent License valid up to October 16, 2014. Respondent has filed a Bill of Entry in respect of Nitenpyrum and Amitraz on behalf of the importer M/s. Ashustosh Pharmalabs, Bangalore. 8. In substance, Shri. Deshpande s case is that the respondent has mis-declared and mis-classified the goods which is in violation of CBLR, 2013 with an intent to evade Customs duty. The goods were misclassified under CTH2804/CTH2921 instead classifying under CTH3808. Only the chemical names of the goods were declared and the trade names namely, Nitenpyrum and Am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
