Page 192 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

582 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

that with the representative of the appellant he has manipulated the actual
weight of containers and entered weight of cargo in the weighment slip as per
the weight declared by the importer in invoice and bill of lading. He also stated
that manipulated weighment slips were handed over to the representative of the
Custom Broker and the actual weight of those containers were available in the
computer installed at the Weigh Bridge. He also submitted that the manipulation
in weight was being done for a small monetary consideration which was agreed
by Shri Subhasish Bhattachariya, Director of the appellant and Shri Debasish
Bhattachariya and Shri Chandan Chatterjee also the employee of the appellant.
6. The enquiry conducted at the premises of transport revealed that the
transported consignment of old and used clothing always used to be in between
25-26 M.T. on an average, but the declared weight was always lesser.
7. During investigation, the DRI also summoned the various importers,
however, the summons returned undelivered with remark ‘not found/not exist-
ed’, which as per the department indicated that the importers were non-existent
firm which was not informed by the appellant to the Customs department. Fur-
ther the appellant has also paid an amount of Rs. 65.40 Lakhs towards the differ-
ential duty on behalf of importer till the issuance of show cause notice.
8. On the basis of aforesaid investigation, it was concluded that appel-
lant has violated the provisions of Customs Broker’s License Regulation (CBLR).
9. The department suspended the licence of the appellant on 3-1-2017
under the provisions of Regulation 19(1) of CBLR and enquiry was ordered to be
conducted. After the enquiry proceeding the charge levelled on the appellant
was held to be proved by the enquiry officer for violation of provisions of Regu-
lation 11(d), 11(e), 11(m) and 17(9) of the CBLR. The enquiry report was submit-
ted to the Commissioner, who after giving opportunity of personal hearing held
that the appellant has violated the provisions of Regulations 11(d) and 17(9) of
CBLR, however dropped the charge for violation of provisions of Regulation
11(e) and 11(m) of CBLR.
10. Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that offence
report was submitted to the Commissioner on 26-12-2016 which resulted in sus-
pension of the appellant’s licence on 3-1-2017, and that was confirmed on 11-1-
2017. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued on 10-3-2017 asking them as to
why their CHA should not be revoked. The enquiry officer submitted her report
on 5-6-2017 and the impugned order had been passed on 21-9-2017. This clearly
shows that the entire proceeding has been completed beyond the prescribed time
limit under the CBLR. More so, the impugned order has been passed on Septem-
ber 21, 2017 even though the enquiry report was submitted on May 31, 2017 un-
der cover of letter which was filed on June 2, 2017 thus the same is beyond the
prescribed time limit of 90 (Ninety) days and therefore the order is ex facie illegal
and void ab initio.
11. It is further submitted by the Learned Advocate that the impugned
order is full of contradictions regarding weight of the imported consignment of
old and used cloth. Shri Ratan Baidya based on whose statement the entire inves-
tigation hinges has sometime stated that the employee of the appellant company
would be interacting with him regarding manipulation of the weight while on
other occasion the name of Shri Subhasish Bhattachariya was mentioned by him.
Further, Shri Ratan Baidya also categorically submitted in his statement that the
Weigh Bridge remains non-functional most of the time during 2015-2016 and
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  192