TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 317
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Regulation 22 of the CHALR, 2004. 2. The appellant, M/s. Bombay Shipping Agency filed four shipping bills all dated 15-3-2012 pertaining to one exporter, namely, M/s. Galaxy Export, New Delhi for the export of scarfs. The goods covered by the shipping bills were also carted on 16-3-2012. It was noticed that the said exporter had filed four more shipping bills all dated 20-3-2012 for the same goods which have been carted under the cover of shipping bills dated 15-3-2012. In the shipping bills filed on 20-3-2012, they had changed the FOB value and the claim for drawback, from Rs. 85,14,717/- to Rs. 50,15,520/- in respect of FOB value and from Rs. 7,74,837/- to Rs. 4,56,862/- in respect of drawback. It appeared that the changes in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the provisions of Regulation 13(b), 13(d) and 13(o) of the CHALR, 2004 and accordingly in terms of Regulation 20(2) of the CHALR, 2004, the said CHA licence was suspended pending enquiry under Regulation 22 of the CHALR, 2004. 2.2 A post-decisional hearing was granted to the CHA on 19-6-2012 and thereafter, the impugned order was passed on the prima facie view that the appellant had violated Regulations 12, 13(b), 13(d), 13(e), 13(o) and 19(8) of the CHALR, 2004 and the suspension was continued pending enquiry under Regulation 22 of the CHALR, 2004. Hence the appellant is before us. 3. The learned consultant for the appellant makes the following submissions : 3.1 While in the suspension order dated 15-5-2012, the allegat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... let his licence so as to invoke the provisions of Regulation 12 of the CHALR, 2004. 3.4 The allegation of violation of Regulation 13(b), 13(d) and 13(o) of CHALR, 2004 is not based on any substantive evidence. No loss of revenue to the exchequer has been caused and, therefore, question of negligence on the part of the CHA does not stand proved. The goods initially seized by the Customs have been subsequently provisionally released and the extent of over-valuation was yet to be determined and established. Pending such determination the CHA cannot be blamed for over-valuation at all. 3.5 In any case, the CHA have been out of business for almost 10 months and the same is more than a sufficient punishment for the inadvertent errors....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....use of a person for transacting the business should be in the Customs station. If the services of a person has been availed outside the Customs station, violation of Regulation 13(b) would not arise at all. The violation of Regulation 13(d) of not advising the client to comply with the provisions of the Act and not bringing the matter to the notice of the Dy. Commissioner of Customs also do not appear to be sustainable because, in the present case, the appellant had taken the permission of the apprising officer of the Customs before the documents were handed over to the CWC for amendment of the shipping bills. Even though the apprising officer is not the proper officer to allow such amendment, nothing prevented the said officer in directing....