TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1155
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en shipping bills covering consignments of readymade garments namely rayon scarves in 356 packages were filed under Duty Drawback Scheme. These shipping bills pertained to five exporters including M/s Reliable Overseas and were filed by customs broker M/s Sunil Dutt. On examination, the goods were not only found to be short but also of inferior quality vis-a-vis the value declared for claiming drawback benefit. Thereafter the past exports of the said exporters including M/s Reliance Overseas were also taken up for investigation. It was found that (i) Four shipping bills of M/s Reliance Overseas were filed by the appellant on 28.07.2009 and (ii) The exporter was non-existent. The Commissioner held that the appellant had not obt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C circular No. 9/2010-Cus. prescribing KYC norm was issued on 08.04.2010 and prior to that no KYC norms were prescribed. (vi) The timeline for completion of proceeding under CHA license under Regulation 22 were reiterated by the CBEC vide circular No. 9/2010-Cus. dated 08.04.2010 for proper compliance. 4. Ld. DR for the Revenue on the other hand argued that it is a fact on record that the appellant never met the exporter or got in touch with it and therefore violation of Regulation 13(a) (d) and (e) is clearly established. The timeline prescribed in Regulation 22 is not mandatory and is to be treated to be directory. 5. We have considered the contentions of both sides. It is evident from the facts and evidence on record and is not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submit his report within ninety days from the date of issue of a notice under sub-regulation (1)." As is evident from the Regulation 22(5) quoted above the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs was required to submit enquiry report within a period of 90 days from the date of issue of notice under sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 22. In this case, such notice was issued on 14.10.2011 while enquiry report was submitted on 19.01.2015 which is more than three years after the notice was issued under Regulation 22(1). Ld. DR has contended that the timeline prescribed under Regulation 22 should not be read to be mandatory. She pleaded that the timeline provision is more in the nature of a directory provision. We find....