2016 (9) TMI 829

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stoms regarding export cargo with misdeclared items during June, 2014. The appellants were alleged to have involved in the attempt for irregular export of misdeclared cargo with a view to facilitate ineligible export incentive. The officers of DRI, Mumbai sent the intimation to Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai on 30/9/14 regarding the said mis-declaration and investigation. The Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai issued an order of prohibition dated 5/11/14 against the appellant prohibiting them from operating in Customs Zone, Mumbai. Intimation was sent to Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi who is the Licensing Authority for the appellant. The said intimation was received by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....thority and stated the overall time period of 270 days i.e. from the date of receipt of offence report to the date of issue of order by the Licensing Authority has been complied with. 4. We have heard both the sides and examined the appeal records. Since, the appellant raised the question of validity of the proceedings in terms of time limits prescribed under Regulation 20 of CBLR we have examined the said issue first. The admitted facts are that Regulation 20 prescribes three separate time limits of 90 days each for each stage of proceedings against a custom broker. In the present case the appellant plead that the offence report of DRI, Mumbai was received by Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai on 30/9/14 based on the same he had ....