AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 716
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ahmadabad, that M/s Binani Cements Ltd had alleged to have mis-declared their correct transaction value of the imported goods before customs authorities at Kandla, at the time of import on 17th Feb. 2012. DRI officers after conducting the search and recording various statements of the officers of Binani cements Ltd and the partners and documentation in-charge of the appellant issued a Show Cause Notice to Binani Cements Ltd demanding from them differential customs duty. The said Show Cause Notice also directs the appellant herein to show cause as to why penalty be not imposed on them. The said Show Cause Notice is still pending for adjudication. In the meanwhile, the DRI vide letter dtd 7.5.2013 informed the Commissioner of Customs, Custom ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndicate for the under valuation as alleged is on their part and they had not informed about the actual value to the CHA. It is also his submission that the entire case of the Revenue is based upon the mismatch of the insurance taken by the said Binani Cements Ltd and the invoice which was raised for the imported goods. He would then take us through the various provision of CBLR, 2013 and submit that the appellant cannot be alleged with violation of the provision in as much as there is no evidence that appellant had directed or misdirected the customs dept. or the importer M/s Binani Cements Ltd. It is his submission that there are various case laws which clearly laid down that power of suspension is an emergent power where it has to be exer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aving omitted to bring this to the knowledge of the customs authority, are correctly penalized by the Commissioner of Customs by way of suspension their CHA license. 5. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. The factual matrix is not disputed by both sides in as much as the bill of entry for the goods imported was filed in Feb 2012 and the statements were recorded by DRI officers of the individuals from appellant firm in Nov. 2012. The provisional suspension was ordered by the Commissioner of Customs in November 2013 and later confirmed by the impugned order dtd 9.12.2013. 6. In our considered view, the action of suspending CHA license by the Commissioner in Nov 2013 is an order which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o subsequent acts or orders of the Tribunal. 2. The power of suspension is pursuant to the powers conferred under Regulation 20(2) of the CHALR, 2004. As we have noted in the earlier judgments, this is an emergent power to be used in those cases where it is required that the CHA licence be immediately suspended. The very fact that alleged violation is of the year 2005, as the import had taken place in September, 2005 and order of suspension was issued on 30-10-2006 itself would indicate that that there is no emergency which required that the licence be suspended. The tribunal has noted that it is always open to the appellants herein to take steps even after the order of the tribunal sated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y evidence submitted by the importer. Secondly, we find that there is no proximity between the action of suspension and the act of filing the bill of entry. The bill of entry was filed in January, 2012 and the test report indicating that the goods imported were different from those given in the import documents was also known to the department as early as January, 2012. A show cause notice was also issued to the importer and the appellant proposing confiscation of the goods in July, 2012. No action appears to have been taken against the appellant almost for a period of one year under the provisions of CHALR. Power of suspension under Regulation 20(2) of CHALR, 2004 has been given to the Commissioner to exercise the same in any emergent case....