TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 999
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....avened the provisions of Regulation 11(a) & (d) and 11(m), his licence was suspended on 18.11.2013. The suspension was continued vide order dt. 12.12.2013. Subsequently, a SCN dt. 12.12.2013 was issued under Regulation 20 of CHALR for revocation of licence. The adjudicating authority after following the principles of natural justice in his impugned order revoked the licence and also forfeited the full amount of security deposit. Against this order, appellant preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the Hon'ble Single Judge by order dt. 15.7.2015 in W.P. No.28921/2014 dismissed the writ petition on the ground that appellant has got alternate appeal remedy before CESTAT. Against this order, appellant preferred a writ appeal and the Hon'ble High Court by their order dt. 26.8.2015 in in W.A.No.1236/2015 and M.P. No.1/2015, dismissed the writ appeal with a direction to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Tribunal after condoning the delay from 5.11.2013 till the date of receipt of copy of the High Court's order. The Hon'ble High Court also directed the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal within a period of four months. Hence the presen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of Atul D. Sopnal Vs CC Mumbai 2012 (275) ELT 248 (Tri.-Mumbai). He submits that definition of "Importer" as per the Customs Act is any person who files Bill of Entry is an importer. He relied Section 7 of the FT (D&R) Act, 1992 read with Rule 12 of the Foreign Trade (Regulations) Rules,1993. He relied Hon'ble High Court's order dt. 25.6.2014 in the case of GAC Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs UOI and submits that when no action has been initiated for contravention under the Customs Act against any importer, revocation of licence of CHA is pre-mature. He also submits that till date, no SCN has been issued to any of the importers for demanding anti-dumping duty. 5. On the other hand, Ld. A.R for Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order and submits that initiating action against CHA is an independent action of CHALR and submits that Hon'ble Bombay High Court order in the case of Hamid Fahim Ansari Vs CC (supra) relates to the period prior to the amendment of FT Policy w.e.f 16.9.2013. FT Policy was amended and includes "lending of IE code is an offence" under F.T. Act and also submits that CHA not obtained any authorization from IEC holders and they....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t held that when no proceedings are initiated under Customs Act there is no justification for initiating action under CHALR. The relevant para of the High Court order is reproduced as under :- "11. There are enough provisions in the Customs Act enabling the Commissioner to take care of evasion of duty and dealing with persons responsible for the same. There are also enough measures and which can be initiated so as to prevent such activities in future. However, when the proceedings against the importer in this case are pending and no final adjudication has taken place and the matter is as old as 3 years, then, we do not see any justification for issuing a notice to the petitioner and proceeding against it in terms of Regulation 23. There is much substance in the contention of Shri Shah that the show cause notice has close proximity with the case or stand of the importer/client. From time to time the importer/client has succeeded in protecting its rights, namely, of import and the grant of Essentiality Certificate. The petitioner can be proceeded against together with the importer under independent powers conferred in the Commissioner by the Customs Act, 1962, and that is no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on which the impugned notice is challenged is that the contents of the show cause notice disclose a pre-conceived and closed mind. A careful look at the show cause notice would show that upto paragraph, the show cause notice contains the narration of the facts relating to investigation conducted, the evidence recorded in the course of enquiry, etc. 4. But, thereafter, in paragraph 9, the first respondent has recorded a series of findings. These findings, are very categorical in nature, without leaving any, scope for the petitioner to explain. 5. Even in paragraph 14 of the impugned show cause notice, the first respondent has asserted that a clear prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner and that if the petitioner is allowed to continue to operate, it would be detrimental to the interest of revenue. 6. In the light of the categorical assertions and findings, I do not think that any useful purpose would be served in asking the petitioner to submit a reply to the show cause notice. At the stage of show cause notice, the first respondent should only have an open mind. If his mind is closed with predetermined conclusions, the requirement of ....