9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of clearance of the household good is substantive acknowledgement of obtaining the purported authorization as prescribed. Since this was not a case of regular import by an IEC holder but supply of domestic household goods, we do not find any merit in the department s plea in subjecting the appellant to severe penal action. The penalty imposed is certainly excessive and not proportionate to the nature of the said offence, if any. We do not find it a fit case for imposition of such harsh penal consequences and at best, if any violation- being hyper-technical, it ought to have been let off on a mere caution to the appellant. We therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal filed by the party with consequential relief if any as pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt the goods from abroad, however during the enquiry proceedings the appellants G Card holder in his testimony before the department had admitted that they had received no written order either from Mohd Khadim Ansari or Mohd Zainul Abedin to whom the cargo (household goods) was consigned to, that there being no written agreement with the above named two person the job was undertaken in good faith for a consideration of Rs. 3000/- and appropriate permission from AC, Air Cargo Complex taken to reflect IEC Code No. 0100000053 as required under the Customs Laws in respect of importers not having a IEC Code. 3. The department has invoked violation of Regulation 11(a) and Regulation 11(n) of the CBLR, 2013. For sake of records the two regulations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s taken up by the appellant in a very careless manner and further the appellant also violated Regulation 17 as he failed to exercise necessary supervision to ensure proper conduct of his employees in the transaction of business. Following due process of law and conduct of an enquiry in terms of Regulation 20 of the CBLR, 2013, the department upheld the aforesaid charges against the appellant, whereby it imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under CBLR, 2013, as a pre-condition to restore the appellants license. 5. It is on record that the appellant had produced zerox copy of authorization letter dated 19.11.2013 signed by Shri Zainul Abedin, the recipient of the household goods alongwith copy of his passport No. L2031314. While the department d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
