2014 (11) TMI 662 - AT - Customs

Revocation of License - Forfeiture of security deposit - whether the appellant and the Customs broker M/s J.M. Baxi & Co. have colluded for evasion of Customs duty and if so whether the CB is liable for penal action under Regulation 20 of CBLR 2013 or otherwise - Held that - appellant, who is a CB, cannot be faulted with or cannot be charged with negligence or carelessness and failure to discharge the obligation cast upon him when he filed all the documents that indicate the imported vessel being Seismographic Research Vessel . Filing of such documents with the authorities has been admitted by the adjudicating authority in Para 24 of the impugned order wherein the adjudicating authority records I find on record that the said CB has filed Bill of Entry No.931901, dt.25.01.2010 with the documents for the clearance of the subject vessel with related documents. When on such categorical acceptance of the fact that the appellant herein has discharged his duty liability as a Customs Broker by filing all the related documents, declaring the vessel as Seismographic Research Vessel , the change in classification after investigation, in our view, cannot be attributed to malafide or mens-rea of the Customs Broker. Declaration filed by the appellant for the clearance of the vessel as being supported by the documents in his custody and were filed with the Customs authorities, the action of CB cannot be faulted with, more so that it is an act that attracts stringent action of revelation of licence as a CB. We find that the impugned order of the adjudicating authority revoking the CB licence of the appellant is absolutely unwarranted and the said order is unsustainable from any angle. impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Revocation of Customs broker license based on alleged mis-declaration of imported vessel.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the revocation of the license and forfeiture of security deposit based on mis-declaration of an imported vessel. The appellant, a Customs broker, was accused of declaring the vessel incorrectly to evade Customs duty, resulting in an alleged duty escapement of approximately Rs. 9.25 Crores.

2. The appellant contended that there was no mis-declaration and provided documents supporting their claim, including invoices, packing lists, and registration documents, all indicating the vessel as a 'Seismic Research Vessel'. The appellant argued that the revocation of the license was disproportionate as there was no negligence or failure on their part, citing relevant legal precedents to support their case.

3. The Departmental Representative argued that the appellant had indeed mis-declared the vessel, leading to a potential revenue loss. It was asserted that the appellant, as a Customs broker, should have correctly classified the vessel and notified the authorities, failing which they violated the Customs Brokers Licence Regulations, 2013.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the facts and documents submitted by the appellant, noting that all records indicated the vessel as a 'Seismic Research Vessel'. The Tribunal highlighted certificates from the Indian Registrar of Shipping categorizing the vessel as such, questioning the discrepancy in classification by different government departments.

5. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had fulfilled their duty as a Customs broker by submitting all relevant documents declaring the vessel as a 'Seismic Research Vessel'. The Tribunal emphasized that the change in classification post-investigation did not imply malafide intent on the part of the appellant, citing an unreported judgment to support their reasoning.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal found the revocation of the Customs broker license unwarranted and unsustainable, directing the restoration of the license to the appellant. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments, findings, and legal reasoning involved in the case of revocation of a Customs broker license due to alleged mis-declaration of an imported vessel.