Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant contested the impugned order both on merits as well as on question of time bar in terms of Regulation 20 of CB Licensing Regulations, 2013. On merits it is submitted that the appellant have never dealt with consignments which are found to have contravened the provisions of Customs Act. The view of the original authority that the appellants have aided and abetted wrong activities are without any factual basis. The consignment imported by M/s. Bhoomi Enterprises were lying unclaimed since July 2011 and the appellants have no role to play in the said consignment. The allegation against the appellant was sought to be sustained only on the ground that Shri Shravanan, their employee at Mumbai, had done customs clearance work for importers whose background was not checked by the appellant. On perusal of the impugned order we find that the much emphasis was given on the appellants purported role in the attempted smuggling of cigarette in the name of one M/s. Bhoomi Enterprises. We find that in respect of the said consignment no Bill of Entry was filed by any person and the case was investigated based on the intelligence of the unclaimed cargo lying in the port. The importer name was linked only based on the Bill of Lading. We do not find any link to the appellant with reference to their activity as their customs agent.