ORDER

No.

S2/04/2005-CHA dated 5.12.2014. This prohibition was on account of alleged lapse of the appellant which led to the smuggling of 14,750 KG of Red Sander Logs that were exported by M/s.

M.M. Industries to Sharjah UAE.

On further investigations the Commissioner of Customs Cochin issued show cause notice F.No.S34/01/2015 dated 02.03.2015. And thereby an inquiry officer was appointed who after thorough investigation submitted detailed report to the Commissioner.

The Commissioner in the impugned order based on the offence report, statements, inquiry report and other investigations held that ‘there is no finding to the effect that the appellant or any of its employees had conspired in the attempted smuggling operation.’ Thus, taking a lenient view resisted from revoking the license but ordered forfeiture of security deposit of ₹25,000/-.

Aggrieved by this order the appellant is in appeal before us praying that the order needs to be set aside.

2. The learned counsel submits that the impugned order confirming forfeiture of security deposit is unreasonable, unjustifiable and unsustainable in law. It is submitted that the entire proceedings are barred by limitation. As per Regulation (20) of the CBLR 2013, the notice should be issued within 90 days from the date of receipt of the offence report and in the present case the statement was recorded from the Managing Partner on 15th October 2013 and the notice was issued on 02.03.2015 which is much later than the prescribed limit under the regulations, hence the notice is barred by limitation and unsustainable. It is also submitted that the inquiry report is also barred by limitation as it is beyond 90 days from the date of the show cause notice.

2.1 He further submits that the entire allegation is based on the statement of Shri Loganathan who admitted that the appellant had sublet the licence to him which is totally false and unsustainable. The request for cross examining him was rejected and this is against the regulations which categorically state that the appellant should be given an opportunity for cross examining those persons who are party to the alleged offence.

3. The learned Authorised Representative reiterated the findings of the Commissioner and relied upon the decision of this bench in the case of M/s . UDL Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Customs Final Order No.20036/2024 dated 09.01.2024, where this Tribunal held that since there was misdeclaration of goods as ‘industrial ductile pipes’ when actually the goods found to be ‘red sander logs’ a penalty of Rs.50,000/- was upheld.

4. Heard both sides. At Para 10 of the impugned order, the Commissioner has stated that the alleged incident occurred in September 2013, the order prohibiting the appellant from executing work at the Chennai Customs Commissionerate under the jurisdiction of Chennai Customs Zone was issued by the Commissioner of Customs Imports Chennai on 05.12.2014 and the Occurrence Report was received by the parent Commissionerate on 16.12.2014. The show cause notice was issued on 02.03.2015, thus the notice was issued within 90 days from the date of receipt of the Occurrence Report which is within the specified limit as per Regulation (20) of CBLR 2013.

4.1 With regard to the inquiry report the Commissioner notes that one of the reasons for the delay was on account of the reply to the notice submitted by the appellant much after the stipulated time of 30 days. Further the delay was on account of cross examination sought by the appellant. Based the request of the appellant for cross examination of Shri Loganathan, he was asked to appear on 27.05.2015 for cross examination. The letter sent to Shri. Loganathan’s address was returned by the postal authorities with the remark ‘left’. Later it was informed that he had requested for another date for appearing for cross examination and once again he was informed to appear 09.06.2015 but he failed to attend again. Finally, on 19.06.2015 another oppor