2021 (9) TMI 592

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in the application filed for condoning the delay are reproduced below: "1. That the appellant has filed the accompanying appeal against the impugned order dated 15.03.2016, the contents of which may kindly be read as part and parcel of the present application, which are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. 2. That, the appellant has not been served the impugned order, since he had left the same, which is matter of record. As a matter of fact, that order is lying in the file of the department, upon having been returned by the postal authorities. It is submitted that despite repeated requests and repeated visits the appellant has not been given that order in original, though upon his vigorous persuasion he was given a copy of that order, enclosed herewith. 3. That, balance of convenience lies in favour of the appellant and irreparable loss would be caused to the appellant, in case the appeal is dismissed on technical ground. 4. That, non filing of the present appeal within the statutory period, if this period of non supply/communication, till the appellant was handed over a copy of that order, is not taken into account, is neither intentional nor deliberate b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....08.2021, who in the mean time intended to inspect that case file of the department. However, it is most humbly and respectfully submitted that, that request of the counsel for the appellant was not acceded to. Therefore, it is once again respectfully prayed that in order to enable the counsel for the appellant to assist this Hon'ble Court in an effective manner, he may be allowed to inspect the said file, because there is strong apprehension on the part of appellant that the records have been tampered with by the concerned Customs officials, due to the reasons best known to them. 4. That, as a matter of fact, the appellant was given photocopy of the impugned order only after taking his signatures on the order/note sheet of that case file, much after he had handed over an application dated 17.08.2016 to the concerned official (copy enclosed herewith), mentioning therein about non-supply of the impugned order. It is worth mentioning here that, that application dated 17.08.2016, duly acknowledged by the department could not be filed along with the present appeal, since the same was not traceable to the appellant at that point of time. In view of the foregoing, it is most respectf....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The application also mentions that though requests were made to provide the order in original, but the appellant was only given a copy of the order. 13. The records were summoned from the Department only to ascertain whether the envelope containing the order was in the file of the Department. A perusal of the entire file reveals that the statement made by the appellant in the delay condonation application that the order is in the file of the Department after the envelope was returned by the postal authorities is not correct. 14. The next statement made by the appellant in the delay condonation application is that despite repeated requests and repeated visits, the order in original was not given to the appellant though 'upon vigorous persuasion he was given a copy of that order'. This statement is as vague as it can be. It does not even make a mention of the dates on which the appellant claims requests were made or visits were made for providing a copy of the order in original nor does it state as to when the copy of the order that has been enclosed with the appeal was actually given to him. 15. Under section 129A(3) of the Customs Act 1962 [Customs Act ], every appeal has to be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arious fields relating to customs, including procedure for appeal and revision under the Customs Act. A licence is granted under regulation 7 to an applicant who has passed the oral examination. These facts have been stated only to emphasize that as a Customs Brokers Licence holder, the appellant should have been aware of the remedy available to the appellant against the revocation of the licence and if no steps were taken by the appellant in time, it has to be taken that he was not interested in pursuing the matter. 20. It also needs to be noted that, the licence of the appellant was revoked by order dated March 15, 2016. Regulation 20 deals with procedure for revoking licence or imposing penalty. After a show cause notice was issued to the appellant, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs was required to conduct an enquiry and thereafter prepare a report of the enquiry. The Commissioner of Customs has to then forward, a copy of the report of the Deputy Commissioner to the Customs Brokers and require the Customs Broker to submit, within a specified period of not the less than 30 days, any representation that he may wish to make against the said report. It is thereafter that under reg....