9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Chennai. Based on the offence committed by the Customs Broker, the prohibition order was issued on 15.9.2017 and show-cause notice was issued on 27.10.2017 by the Commissioner Customs Chennai. Based on the alleged offence at Chennai and on the basis of documents, another show-cause notice dated 23.1.2018 was issued at Cochin Commissionerate which is parent Commissionerate of the Customs Broker. Reliance placed in Final Order No.41814/2018 dated 2.5.2018 [ 2018 (8) TMI 1603 - CESTAT CHENNAI] wherein the Tribunal has observed We do not find any material ground for issuance of the prohibition order or its continuance. Moreover, it is to be stated that such continuation of the probation order without prescribing a time-limit would be bye pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a show-cause notice was issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin and based on the detailed enquiry, the Commissioner held that the appellant had violated the conditions laid down under Regulation 11(a), 11(d) and 11(n) and accordingly for gross non-compliance of the provisions of Regulations of CBLR 2013, the license was revoked along with forfeiture of security deposit. 2. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that for the offence committed at Chennai, the Order-in-Original dated 24.11.2017 was issued on which they had filed an appeal and the Tribunal vide Final Order No.4814/2018 dated 2.5.2018 set aside the impugned order. It is further submitted that simultaneously on the same offence as mentioned above, separate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e period expired on 14.12.2017 and therefore, entire proceedings are barred by limitation and placed reliance on the following judgments. (i) Masterstroke Freight Forwarders P. Ltd. vs. CC(I), Chennai-I: 2016 (332) ELT 300 (Mad.) (ii) Sowparnika Shipping Services vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-VIII: 2017 (352) ELT 286 (Mad.) (iii) Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin vs. MKS Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd.: 2017 (348) ELT 640 (Mad.) 3. The learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner and relied upon the following decisions: (i) D.M. Mehta Bros. vs. CC (General), Mumbai: 2017 (346) ELT 477 (Tri.-Mum.) (ii) Interport Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC (General), Mumbai: 2015 (324) ELT 744 (iii) Sri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. The Hon ble High Court in the case of Kunal Travels (Cargo) (supra) had observed that CHALR, 2004 requires exercise of due diligence by the CHA. The Hon ble Court observed that aforesaid clauses in the Regulations do not obligate the CHA to look into such information which may be made available to him from the exporter / importer. The CHA is not an inspector to weigh the genuineness of the transaction. It is a processing agent of documents with respect to clearance fo goods through customs house. It was observed that it would be far too onerous to expect the CHA to inquire into and verify the genuineness of the IEC given to it by a client for each import / export transaction. 6 When such code is mentioned, there is a presumption that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
