2022 (7) TMI 1039

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Bhalla and Ashu Chauhan. The appellant obtained a Customs Broker License on 21.07.2014. On 20.06.2017, one of the partners Ashu Chauhan expired. On 11.12.2017 a new partnership deed was executed between Umesh Kumar Bhalla, John Verghese and Ajit Singh Malik w.e.f. the earlier date i.e. 20.06.2017 to revive the LLP in terms of section 7 of the Limited Liability Act, 2008. The details of reconstituted partnership deed were registered with Ministry of Corporate Affairs on 01.09.2018. The appellant filed their first Bill of Entry [BE] on 06.10.2018 and on 10.10.2018 intimation was filed with Customs for addition of new partners in the Customs record. 3. Learned Counsel pointed out that proceedings were initiated against the appellant for viola....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Affairs was obtained on 01.09.2018 and the intimation to the Customs was given on 10.10.2018. It was well within the time limit prescribed in Regulation 7 of the CBLR 2018 as well as Regulation 13 of CBLR, 2013. In view of above submissions, learned Counsel sought full waiver of forfeiture of security as well as penalty imposed in the impugned order. 7. Learned Authorized Representative relied on the impugned order. He argued that even if the license was obtained under CBLR 2013, and the show cause notice invokes CBLR 2018, the proceedings do not get vitiated. He argued that the charges in the show cause notice are crystal clear and mere incorrect invocation of the Regulation does not nullify the show cause notice. Learned Counsel argued....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that Regulation 7 (2) of CBLR, 2018 has been violated cannot be sustained as appellant was granted license not under CBLR, 2018 but under CBLR, 2013. 11. Learned Authorised Representative argued that merely misquoting a legal provision does not vitiate the proceedings as the charges of delay of reporting the constitution of LLP has been clearly made out. 12. Now, the provision of CBLR, 2013, under which the appellant was granted the licence, need to be examined. Regulation 13 of the CBLR, 2013 reads as follows :- "REGULATION 13. Change in constitution of any firm or a company. - (1) In the case of any firm or a company, holding a license under these regulations, any change in the constitution thereof shall be reported by such firm or co....