2024 (2) TMI 574

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ulation (CBLR) 2013. On specific intelligence, the officers of Customs Chennai on examination of a consignment filed by the appellant on behalf of the importer M/s. J.J. Enterprises found that some undeclared items were found in the container. It was also found that the declared value was Rs.6,53,401/- and on market survey on the undeclared items, the value was arrived at Rs.37,77,700/-. Based on the offence report, the Customs Commissionerate at Chennai issued a prohibition order prohibiting the appellant from working in Chennai Customs Jurisdiction. Based on the notice issued by the Chennai Commissionerate which was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original 24.11.2017 ordered continuation of prohibition of the customs broker under Regulation 17 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellate Tribunal, hence this appeal. 2.1 The learned counsel submits that the impugned order is illegal and unsustainable and is against the final order of the CESTAT which was not challenged by the Revenue. He placed his reliance on the decision of the Principal Bench in the case of Nitco Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi: 2017 (352) ELT 218 (Tri.-Del.). He also claims that the entire proceedings is barred by limitation as per Regulation 20(1) of the CBLR 2013 as the notice should have been issued within 90 days from the date of the receipt of the offence report. In this case, there is no offence report. Presuming that the offence committed by them was reported on 26.7.2017 and the order of prohibition ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... which is parent Commissionerate of the Customs Broker. The appellant has now produced Final Order No.41814/2018 dated 2.5.2018 wherein the Tribunal has observed that : "5. From the facts it is brought out that the prohibition order is issued for the reason that the importer has not declared a few items such as aquarium lamp, plastic light clips, fish tank cleaner and trolley bags. The consignment has been declared to contain fish tanks. The weight of the allegation is that one of the employees has given a statement that no authorization was obtained from the importer M/s. J.J. Enterprises. It is seen that the appellant has obtained the authorization and produced it before the authorities. Another allegation is that the appellant f....