9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 5,000/- and revoked the "H" Cards, "G" Cards and "F" Cards issued to the employees and directed them to be surrendered. The respondent has also imposed penalty of Rs. 54,000/- 3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned Order-in-Original No. 63711 of 2018 dated 01.06.2018 primarily on the ground that the offence report is dated 14.06.2017. However the Show Cause Notice under Regulation 20(1) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 was issued to the petitioner only on 17.12.2017. 4. It is submitted that under Regulation 20(1) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 [now under Regulation 17(1) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018] the said Show Cause Notice ought to have issued to the petitioner within a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mad) and another decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Leo Cargo Services Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Airport and General, New Delhi reported in 2022 (382) E.L.T. 30 (Del). 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the following decisions:- 1. Impexnet Logistic Vs. Commissioner of Customs(General) 2016 (338) ELT 347 (Del) 2. Overseas Air Crgo Vs. Commissioner of Customs(General), New Delhi 2016(340) ELT 119(Del) 3. Santon Shipping Services Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin and another in C.M.A. No. 730 of 2016 dated 13.10.2017 4. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin Vs. MKS Shipping Agency Pvt. ltd 2017(348) ELT 640 (Mad) 5. Sowparnika Shipping Services Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chenna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el Counsel for the respondent further submitted that impugned Order-in-Original No. 63711 of 2018 dated 01.06.2018 was received by Mr. M.R. Naresh Babu, the "F" Card holder of the petitioner and therefore even on this count also the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU, Kakinadu and Others vs. M/s. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (2020) 36 GSTL 305. 12. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Junior Panel Counsel for the respondent. 13. The petitioner was prohibited from operating in Mumbai Customs Zone I, II &III under the provisions of Regulation 23 of CBLR, 2013 in terms of Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
