9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 940X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s Crescent Traders (hereinafter referred to as the 'importer') were mis-declared in respect of value and other material particulars. Intelligence also suggested that some of the goods were in violation of Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) norms and some of the imported goods involved in the said Bill of Entry were counterfeit goods of some well-known brands and infringing Intellectual Property Rights. Investigation revealed that the importer was a dummy firm as its purported Proprietor Shri Sandesh Tanwar did not have any relation to M/s. Crescent Traders as his documents and photo gives by him in relation to job were mis-used for opening IEC in the name M/s. Crescent Traders, Dombivali (W); instead Shri Nasir Khan was the actual importer/controller of M/s Crescent Traders and he used fake documents/ details in relation to fraudulent import of goods to evade his liability from the Govt. enforcement agencies. Further it appeared that the CB M/s All Marine Cargo Services filed Bill of Entry in respect of the goods imported by M/s Crescent Traders without verifying the KYC documents and genuineness of the importer. The said customs broker has mis-declared/undervalued the goods in ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a pre-mature action on the part of the Ld. Commissioner. 2.4 He also submits that both the inquiry report and the impugned order have been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice which have caused a grave injustice, irreparable harm having loss of business and source of livelihood of the employees of the Appellant for last four years from the date of the impugned order. 2.5 He placed reliance on the following judgments:- Leo Cargo Services - 2022(382)ELT 30(Del.) GSP Shipping & Logistics Agency - 2021(376)ELT 527 (Tri. Kolkata) 3. Shri P. Ganesan , Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of department reiterated the findings given by Learned Commissioner of Customs. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4.1 We find that in the present matter the undisputed facts are that the appellant filed Bill of Entry for import of goods for the importer M/s. Cresent Traders. The investigation revealed goods covered under Bill of Entry were undervalued, mis-declared, undeclared/concealed and prohibited in nature. Further as per revenue the importer was a dummy firm. Alleging violation on the part of the appellant Customs Broker, the Commissioner Custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncipal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs shall, after considering the report of the inquiry and the representation thereon, if any, made by the Customs Broker, pass such orders as he deems fit either revoking the suspension of the license or revoking the license of the Customs Broker within ninety days from the date of submission of the report by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, under sub-regulation (5) : Provided that no order for revoking the license shall be passed unless an opportunity is given to the Customs Broker to be heard in person by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be." 4.4 In terms of Regulation 17(1), a show cause notice is to be issued within 90 days from the date of receipt of the Offence report, while Regulation 17(5) prescribes a time period of 90 days from the date of issue of Show Cause Notice for submission of an Inquiry Report. Regulation 17(7) prescribes that within 90 days from the date of the submission of the Inquiry Report and after consideration thereof, the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner shall pass orders either revoking the suspension of license or re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Circular, it was noted as under : "7.1 The present procedure prescribed for completion of regular suspension proceedings takes a long time since it involves inquiry proceedings, and there is no time limit prescribed for completion of such proceedings. Hence, it has been decided by the Board to prescribe an overall time limit of nine months from the date of receipt of offence report, by prescribing time limits at various stages of issue of Show Cause Notice, submission of inquiry report by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs recording his findings on the issue of suspension of CHA license, and for passing of an order by the Commissioner of Customs. Suitable changes have been made in the present time limit of forty five days for reply by CHA to the notice of suspension, sixty days time for representation against the report of AC/DC on the grounds not accepted by CHA, by reducing the time to thirty days in both the cases under the Regulations." 7. This Court has consistently emphasised the mandatory nature of the aforementioned time limits in several of its decisions. These include the decision in Schankar Clearing & Forwarding v. C.C. (Import & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 17(4) of the CBLR Regulations, 2018, which requires Inquiry Officer to give reasons if he intends to deny such right to the Customs Broker. Recognizing the right of cross-examination, in the case of Flevel International v. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2015 SCC OnLine Delhi 12173 : 2016 (332) E.L.T. 416 = [2015] 62 taxmann.com 294 (Delhi)/52 GST 827 (Delhi) held as under :- "42. It is settled law that the denial of an opportunity of cross-examination of a witness whose statements have been relied upon in the adjudication order would vitiate the order of adjudication. In Basudev Garg v. Commissioner of Customs - 2013 (294) E.L.T. 353 (Del.), this Court referred to Section 9D of the CE Act and noted that even while upholding its constitutional validity in J & K Cigarettes Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 2011 (22) S.T.R. 225 (Del.), a Division Bench of this Court had observed that the circumstances under which the right of cross-examination can be taken away would have to be 'exceptional'. This would include circumstances where the person who had given the statement was dead or cannot be found or is incapable of giving evidence or is kept out of the way by adverse party ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
