TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 434
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, informing that he has tendered his resignation from the CHA firm on 13.07.2012, that the same was accepted w.e.f. 14.09.2012; that the appellant informed Chennai Customs vide letter dated 17.09.2012, about his resignation and requested for deletion of his name from the Power of Attorney and also surrendered his F-Card; that however, even after deletion of his name, the appellant had been misusing his Power of Attorney and forging his signature while filing manual Bills of Entry at Tuticorin Customs. Investigation was ordered to verify the correctness of the compliant. Based on the report from the Assistant Commissioner, SIIB, it appeared that the appellant had violated Regulation 11 (b) of Customs B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly on 27/07/2016 well beyond the period of 90 days mandated under Regulation 20 of CBLR. On this point alone the proceedings are void ab initio. As per Regulation 20 (3) of the CBLR, the Dy./Asst. Commissioner in the course of enquiry is required to take oral evidence. As per Regulation 20 (4), Customs Broker is entitled to cross-examine the persons examined in support of the grounds following the basis of the proceedings. Both these requirements have not been met, which rendered the entire proceedings void abinitio. iii) The complainant Shri Sivaraman was an ex-employee who was relieved from the services of the company on 14.09.2012. He has admitted that he received compensation from the appellant for the period 17.09.2012 to 01.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hen to be taken as the relevant date for calculating the 90 days period for issue of notice to the Customs broker. Ld. Advocate has sought to justify his contentions, citing the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of A.M.Ahamed & Co. Vs. CC - 2014 (309) ELT 433 (Mad.). However, a careful reading of the judgment indicates that the Hon'ble High Court while noting that the expression offence report is not defined, has nonetheless held that it is to be presumed that a report indicating the availability of any of the three ingredients in Regulations 20 (1) should be considered as an offence report. In fact, in para-18 of the judgment the High Court has further held that the date of knowledge gained by the Commissioner by means of any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustoms about the resignation of Shri V. Sivaraman, requested for deletion of his name form the Power of Attorney and also surrendered the F-card in original of the concerned person. The impugned order has correctly referred to Regulation 11 B of CBLR, which stipulates that a Customs Broker shall transact business in the customs station either personally or through an employee approved by the Dy. Commissioner of Customs or Asst. Commissioner of Customs. By not complying with the said stipulation, the appellant has no doubt made themselves liable for punitive action under Regulation 18 of the Rules. Nonetheless, it is also seen that apart from the allegation in the impugned order that the appellant has not complied with the said Regulation 11....