TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Revenue's Appeal Dismissed: Lack of Right to Challenge Security Deposit Forfeiture</h1> The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal challenging the forfeiture of the security deposit of the Custom House Agent (CHA) under CHALR, 2004. Citing ... Proceedings under CHALR, 2004 - right of Revenue to file an appeal under CHALR - Misdeclaration of export goods - Ketamine hydrochloride - prohibited for export goods - the goods were declared as “SS Grinder” with spare parts - Held that:- In the Tribunal decision in the case of M/s. Falcon India [2018 (3) TMI 650 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal has observed that the Revenue does not enjoy the right to file an appeal under CHALR - The present proceedings have been initiated under CHALR 2004, but the view expressed by the Tribunal is equally applicable. The appeal filed by the Revenue dismissed on the ground that the CHALR does not provide for a right of Revenue to file an appeal. Issues:Violation of CHALR, 2004 by a Custom House Agent (CHA) leading to confiscation of export goods and proceedings against the CHA for license revocation.Analysis:The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the Order-In-Original (OIO) dated 28.05.2012, where the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, ordered forfeiture of the security deposit of the CHA. The respondent, a CHA, had filed a shipping bill mis-declaring the goods as 'SS Grinder' but the consignment was found to contain prohibited substance 'Ketamine hydrochloride'. The Revenue contended that the violation was serious and sought revocation of the CHA license. The Revenue emphasized that the punishment imposed was too lenient considering the gravity of the offense. The respondent argued that the appeal by the Revenue was not maintainable under CHALR, 2004, citing precedents where it was held that the Revenue does not have the right to file an appeal under the said regulations.The Tribunal examined the impugned order passed under CHALR, 2004, where the Commissioner refrained from revoking the CHA license but ordered forfeiture of the security deposit. The Tribunal considered the case laws cited by the respondent, particularly the decision in the case of M/s. Falcon India, where it was held that the Revenue does not have the right to file an appeal under CHALR, 2004. The Tribunal noted the absence of specific provisions for the Revenue to file an appeal under CHALR, 2004, and following the precedent, dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The cross-objection filed by the respondent was also disposed of accordingly.Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the OIO for forfeiture of the security deposit of the CHA was dismissed by the Tribunal on the grounds that CHALR, 2004 does not provide for the Revenue to file an appeal. The decision was based on the precedent set by previous judgments where it was held that specific provisions for the Revenue to appeal under CHALR, 2004 were lacking, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
