Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Seacom Cargo Pvt. Ltd vs Mumbai on 8 September, 2011

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI


APPEAL NO: C/133/2009

[Arising out of Order-in-Original No:  102/2008 dated 30/12/2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai.]


For approval and signature:


     Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
     Honble Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)


	

1.
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
:
No
2.
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
:
Yes
3.
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
:
Seen
4.
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
:
Yes






Seacom Cargo Pvt. Ltd.

Appellant
Vs


Commissioner of Customs (General) 


Mumbai

Respondent

Appearance:

Shri B. Pathak, Advocate for the appellant Shri V.K. Singh, Authorised Representative (SDR) for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Date of decision: 08/09/2011 ORDER NO: ____________________________ Per: P.R. Chandrasekharan:
This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No: 102/2008 dated 30/12/2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General), New Custom House, Mumbai. Vide the impugned order the Commissioner has suspended the operation of CHA licence No. 1/1418 held by the appellant M/s. Seacom Cargo Pvt. Ltd. in Mumbai Custom House Zone.

2. The brief facts of the case are that:

2.1. Acting on intelligence, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence intercepted an import shipment purported to be imported by one M/s. Samarth Corporation of Bhiwandi, Dist. Thane. The goods were declared as cotton fabrics and valued at Rs. 4.65 lakhs. Investigation revealed the fact that the importing firm did not exist at the given address and the goods were found to be cotton, polyester and coated fabrics for suiting and upholstery and the value was ascertained at Rs. 15 lakhs. It was also found that the consignment was imported not by M/s. Samarth Corporation but by another person by name Shri Kailash Kabra.
2.2. The investigation further revealed that the CHA firm M/s. Seacom Cargo Pvt. Ltd. misused the Import-Export Code (IEC) of M/s. Samarth Corporation for the import of the goods by Shri Kailash Kabra for monetary considerations. It was also admitted by Shri Mayur Mehta, Manager of the CHA firm, that he had misused the IECs of other firms also in importation of 10-12 consignments for monetary considerations. Since the CHA firm was found actively conniving in the misuse of IECs in illegal import, the learned Commissioner suspended the operation of the CHA licence of M/s. Seacom Cargo Pvt. Ltd.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though almost three years have passed the customs authorities have not initiated the inquiry as envisaged under Regulation 22 of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 (CHALR for short) and prays for setting aside the suspension order passed by the Commissioner. The learned AR appearing for the Revenue opposes the plea and reiterates the findings given in the impugned order.
4. We have carefully considered the submissions.
5. In the interest of equity and justice, we hereby direct the Commissioner of Customs (General), New Custom House, Mumbai to immediately appoint an Inquiry Officer (if not already done). The Inquiry Officer shall complete the post-suspension inquiry and submit the inquiry report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order after giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to present their case. Thereafter, the Commissioner shall proceed in the matter in accordance with and within the time limits provided for in Regulation 22 of the said CHALR.
6. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

(Operative part pronounced in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) */as 4