Ukinex Commercial Services vs Commissioner Of Customs (General)

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

COURT No. I

Appeal No. C/90076/14

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.39/2014-15 dated 04.09.2014 passed by Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai).

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)

================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

Ukinex Commercial Services Appellant Vs.

Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai Respondent

Appearance:

Shri P.P. Jadeja, Consultant for appellant Shri M.S. Reddy, Asst. Commissioner (AR) for respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing: 16.04.2015 Date of Decision: 16.04.2015

ORDER NO

Per: M.V. Ravindran

This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No.39/2014-15 dated 04.09.2014 vide which the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai had suspended CB licence of appellant exercising the powers conferred under provisions of Regulation 19 of CBLR, 2013.

2. Heard both sides and perused the records.

3. On perusal of the records, it transpires that the CB licence was suspended by an order No.36/2014-2015 dated 08.08.2014 and was continued by the impugned order pending inquiry proceedings under Regulation of CBLR 2013. On perusal of the records, we find that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) Ahmedabad had taken up an investigation against alleged improper availment of EPCG scheme of one M/s. Rudrani Impex Pvt. Ltd. during the period 2013. DRI had informed that appellant firm had acted as customs broker during the relevant period and informed the Commissioner of Customs by a letter dated 24.7.2014 about the failure of appellant to discharge their obligation under CBLR 2013. In pursuance of such letter, the licence was suspended on 08.08.2014. We find that the issue involved in this case is now squarely covered by the judgement of the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of CC vs. National Shipping Agency - 2008 (226) ELT 46 (Bom.). In the said case, the Honble High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal which set aside the suspension of the CHA Licence on the ground that there was a delay in taking immediate action on suspension as provided under the provisions of CHALR, 2004. In the case in hand it is an admitted fact that the suspension of CB licence has been ordered after about eight months from the date of notice of deviation or omission. There is no proximity between omission or offence act of the immediate suspension in the case in hand. The judgement of the honble high court in the case of CC vs. Burieigh International  2008 (226) ELT 49 (Bom.) will also apply in this case.

4. Accordingly, in view of the authoritative judicial pronouncements, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with direction to the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai to restore the CB licence to appellant. This order, however, shall not stand in the way in Commissioners proceedings against the appellant in accordance with the provisions of CBLR 2013.

5. The appeal is disposed of as indicated above.

(Dictated in Court)

(P.S. Pruthi) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)

nsk ??

??

??

??

1 3