9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so as to prevent a subsequent trial or prosecution but it has no application to different trials or parallel proceedings in different forms for the same set of facts. In the instant case the proceeding against the Appellant was not concluded at the first instance within the time limit prescribed for such completion got over. Therefore, the protection available under double jeopardy, though can only be extended by Constitutional Courts, would not come to the rescue of the present Appellant since the first proceeding had not been completed but was aborted. When there is a clear finding of the CESTAT that in such an event of noncompletion of the proceedings under CHALR, the order of suspension of CHA licence of the Appellant would stand revoke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in shipping bill was reported against its Exporter. Mumbai Customs had issued the CHA licence to the Appellant for which Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennai had sent the copy of offence report to Mumbai requesting for initiation of action against Appellant s company on the basis of which its CHA licence was suspended, Appellant was given personal hearing in April, 2011 and order No. 2014/11 was issued by the Commissioner of Customs (General), New Customs House, Mumbai directing discontinuance of the service pending inquiry. Appellant preferred an appeal before the CESTAT Mumbai and got the desired relief vide order dated 24.03.2011, the operating portion of which reads: As contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ai Customs, Appellant was put to show-cause notice again on 01.01.2019, subjected to inquiry by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, CEAC, NSII, JNCH, Nhava Sheva who absolved the Appellant from further action. Revocation of CHA licence again was refused on the ground that no new incident has been noticed against the Appellant CHA in anywhere in India or in Mumbai in the past six years till the suspension was revoked and suggested for dropping the proceedings but vide Order-in-Original dated 25.10.2019 the Pr. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai Zone-I revoked the licence of the Appellant under Regulation 20 of CHALR, 2004 (now Regulation 14 of CBLR, 2018) and directed forfeiture of entire security deposit amount. Appellant is befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmissions learned Authorised Representative for the Respondent-Department Mr. Ram Kumar submitted that in the absence of compete offence report inquiry against the Appellant under CHA Regulation could not be conducted for which learned Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai vide his order dated 26.04.2012 revoked the suspension till the outcome of inquiry conducted under CHA Regulation 22 and soon after receipt of the Order-in-Original from Chennai inquiry was issued and communicated to the Mumbai Customs namely Respondent, inquiry was commenced and delay in completing inquiry has been adequately addressed by the Adjudicating Authority in the order itself that needs no interference by the Tribunal. 5. We have taken note of the submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
