Page 276 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

922 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Customs Act, 1962 (Contd.)
— Section 129C(5) - See under APPEAL ....................... 892
— Section 129DD - See under REVISION ...................... 671
— Section 129DD(2) - See under REVISION APPLICATION ............ 740
— Section 130 - See under PENALTY ......................... 332
— Section 130A, interpretation of - See under REFERENCE TO HIGH
COURT ........................................ 521
— Section 130A(4) - See under REFERENCE TO HIGH COURT .......... 521
— Section 135 - See under BAIL ............................ 830
— See also under PROSECUTION ................. 318, 364, 817
— Section 144 - See under SAMPLES ....................... 42, 536
— Section 149 - See under FOREIGN TRADE POLICY (FTP) ............ 367
— See also under MERCHANDISE EXPORTS ............... 660
— See also under REFUND/REFUND CLAIM ............... 866
— Section 150 - See under INTEREST/COMPENSATION ............. 836
— Section 151A - See under DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATIONS ........ 686
— Section 154 - See under REFUND/REFUND CLAIM ............... 866
Customs Broker not liable for penalty in absence of knowledge of restricted
items being concealed in import consignment - See under PENALTY ..... 369
Customs Broker’s licence - Power of suspension is an emergent power to be
used in those cases where it is required that Customs Broker license be
immediately suspended - Very fact that alleged violation is of the year
2015 and order of suspension was issued in 2019 itself indicates that there
is no emergency which required license be suspended - Order of
continuation of the suspension of the appellant’s CHA firm set aside -
Regulation 16(1) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 — Maa
Kamakhya Enterprise v. Pr. Commr. of Cus. (Preventive), Kolkata (Tri. - Kolkata) ........ 594
— Revocation of - Reliance mostly on statements recorded under Section 108
of Customs Act, 1962 without producing any supportive and credible
evidence - Submissions made by the appellant were not duly considered
- Revocation of CHA licence, which is harshest penalty should not have
been imposed due to inherent contradiction among the statements
recorded by various persons - Appellant not been avoiding the
investigation, but cooperated and also made a payment of ` 65.00 lakhs
to Customs so as to make good the loss to the Revenue which proves the
bona fide of the appellant - Investigation not being carried out in respect
of all consignments of import of old and used garments, for which
weighment slips were made available it cannot be established beyond
doubt that offence has been committed for all - Appellant having suffered
from the date of suspension of his licence till now, sufficient considering
the gravity of offence committed by the appellant - Revocation of license
set aside - Regulations 17 and 18 of Customs Brokers Licensing
Regulations, 2013 — Merico Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of Cus. (Airport & Admn.),
Kolkata (Tri. - Kolkata) .................................. 580
— Revocation of - Time limit for issuing show cause notice mandatory -
Notice issued after 90 days of offence report - To be quashed -
Consequently order to suspend Customs Broker’s License and its
subsequent extension also liable to be quashed - Regulation 20 of
Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 — HSN Shipping Pvt. Ltd. v.
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai (Mad.) ......................... 689
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  276