2018 (5) TMI 360

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ker Licensing Regulations (CBLR) 2013, on 30.03.2017, upto validity of the licence upto 28.01.2025. M/s. Blue Line Enterprises and M/s. Himalayans Enterprises filed 21 shipping bills through the appellant for the export of "Leather Jackets", 100% Polyester Skirts etc., for export through Chennai Port, which were found to be sub-standard/inferior quality/rags allegedly with an intention to claim undue drawback. Summons were issued to the declared exporters who however failed to respond. The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-VIII vide an Order dated 26.09.2017 found it necessary to take immediate action against the appellants and vide impugned order prohibited the appellants under Regulations of CBLR, 2013 from working in any sections of the C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....io and void. d. Ld. Counsel adverted to para-5 of the impugned order and submitted that action against the appellant was initiated only because neither of the exporters came to DIU nor Mr. Alagesan, assistant of M/s. Himalayans Enterprises could be contacted. Hence, action taken on them only because exporter was not co-operating in the investigation and the resulted conclusion that Customs Broker might have colluded in the export of goods of inferior quality in claiming undue drawback; that even this is incorrect, since in para-6 and 7 of the same impugned order it is narrated, the persons authorized by M/s. Blue Line Enterprises and M/s. Himalayans Enterprises had appeared before the Dock Intelligence Unit on 10.08.2017 and gave v....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....egard we find that the order of prohibition dated 26.09.2017 was issued "to take immediate action against the Customs Broker". The said order also gave an opportunity of personal hearing to the respondent on 03.10.2017. This being so, we find merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel that since the personal hearing itself was given in the first order, they were awaiting the results of the personal hearing and only when the prohibition order was continued, they have come in appeal. In any case, we find even if the appellants had filed an appeal only against the first order dated 26.09.2017, it could even be done so at this stage with an application for condonation of delay which would have been considered as per the procedure. It is also to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....owing a chain of procedures laid down in the Regulations. When the penal provisions in the CBLR can be actualized only by following laid down procedures and within prescribed out time limits, we are unable to support any proposition that the prohibition route envisaged in Regulation 23 can allow for continued disabling of the functioning of the Customs Broker, interminably, without following any principles of Natural Justice or for that matter, without following any of the procedures laid down elsewhere in the Customs Broker (CBLR) Regulations. We are also constrained to note even though a personal hearing in this case was granted by the competent authority on 12.10.2017, it nonetheless took more than four months for the authority to issue ....