9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsing Regulation, 2013/2018 has to mean simpliciter issuance or to be read as served ? - HELD THAT:- The same is covered against the appellant by a recent judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Customs (Airport General) v. M/s R.P. Cargo Handling Services [ 2023 (3) TMI 250 - DELHI HIGH COURT] where it was held that In the present case, there is no ambiguity in the language of Regulation 20(1) of the CBLR. It requires that the Commissioner issues a notice within the period of ninety days from the receipt of the offence report. There is, thus, no reason to construe the expression issue any different from its plain meaning. Whether, for the goods stored in Customs Bonded Warehouse, after its clearance from the port, a CHA can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the appellant s Customs Broker Licence was revoked, its security deposit was forfeited and in addition it was also mulcted with a penalty of ₹50,000/-. The appellant has projected the following questions for consideration of this Court: (i) Whether the word 'issue' as mentioned in Regulation 20(1) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013/2018 has to mean simpliciter issuance or to be read as served . (ii) Whether, for the goods stored in Customs Bonded Warehouse, after its clearance from the port, a CHA can be charged for violation Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013/2018. 3. Insofar as the first question is concerned, the same is covered against the appellant by a recent judgment of this Court da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereof, to bring the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be. There is no allegation that the goods were imported illegally or there has been any irregularity in filing the bills of entry. The principal allegation is that the goods have been diverted after the same have been cleared. 8. There is an allegation regarding the appellant not complying with the KYC conditions. It is contended that the importer firm had been constituted by one Mr. Ramesh Wadhera, who had allegedly financed the said firm, and there is an allegation that his employees were reflected as the owners of the said firm. According to the appellant, it had dealt with one Mr. Sanjeev Maggu, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
