9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 576 - AT - CustomsRevocation of the licence of the Customs Broker - forfeiture of full amount of security deposit - mis-declaration of the goods - Regulations 20(2) of the CHALR, 2004 - Held that - Appellant Shri M. Dhanraj, is sole proprietor and authorized signatory of the appellant company M/s. Transport Logistics - impugned shipping bill was filed in the name of the appellant CHA. The exported goods were examined in the presence of the Customs officers and stuffed and sealed with one time lock and loaded on the Trailor at CFS, Thirunallar, Karaikal. The containers were taken outside the city and tampered the seal and the red sanders were substituted in the place of Ragi with the connivance of the transporter. The export goods were substituted before entering into the port of export i.e., in between CFS and port of export. As evident from the records and the statements, the appellant signed the blank customs documents, declarations and given to other persons and lent his license. Any acts or deeds committed by Mr. Elengo and Mr. Mari of other freight forwarders is to construed as if it was done by the appellant himself. No reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld - Decided against appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Revocation of Customs Broker License 2. Forfeiture of Security Deposit 3. Alleged Misuse of Customs Broker License 4. Compliance with Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR) 5. Financial Involvement and Revenue Loss 6. Leniency and Restoration of License Detailed Analysis: 1. Revocation of Customs Broker License: The appellant's Customs Broker License was revoked due to allegations of lending the license to other freight forwarders for monetary consideration, thereby violating Regulation 12 of CHALR, 2004 (now Regulation 10 of CBLR, 2013). The Inquiry Officer's report confirmed that the appellant had signed blank customs documents and handed them over to unauthorized persons. The Tribunal upheld the revocation, citing the appellant's failure to comply with the provisions of the Customs Act and the CHA Regulations. 2. Forfeiture of Security Deposit: The full amount of the security deposit (Rs. 75,000) was forfeited by the Commissioner of Customs. The Tribunal found this action justified, as the appellant's conduct in lending the license and failing to obtain proper authorization from the actual exporter constituted a serious breach of regulatory compliance. 3. Alleged Misuse of Customs Broker License: The appellant was found to have lent his license to M/s. Aruthura Logistics, who used it to clear a mis-declared consignment containing prohibited 'Red Sander' logs. This act was in contravention of Regulation 13(a) and 13(d) of CHALR, 2004 (now Regulation 11(a) and 11(d) of CBLR, 2013). The Tribunal noted that the appellant's actions facilitated the fraudulent export, and any misconduct by the freight forwarders was attributable to the appellant. 4. Compliance with Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR): The Tribunal emphasized the importance of strict compliance with the CBLR. The appellant's failure to advise his clients to adhere to the Customs Act and his practice of signing blank customs documents were significant violations. The Tribunal referenced the case of Sri Kamakshi Agency, highlighting the responsibilities of a Customs Broker to prevent illegal activities and maintain the integrity of customs procedures. 5. Financial Involvement and Revenue Loss: The appellant argued that there was no financial gain or revenue loss to the exchequer due to his actions. However, the Tribunal found inconsistencies in the appellant's statements regarding his knowledge of the exporter and the financial transactions involved. The Tribunal dismissed the argument for leniency based on the lack of financial involvement, as the appellant's actions still constituted a serious regulatory breach. 6. Leniency and Restoration of License: The appellant sought leniency, citing the loss of livelihood and the imposition of a Rs. 3,00,000 penalty by the Commissioner of Customs (Exports). The Tribunal referred to the decision in Shri Venkatesh Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd., where leniency was shown in a similar case. However, the Tribunal noted that the decision explicitly stated it should not be treated as a precedent. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the revocation and forfeiture, rejecting the appeal for leniency. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, confirming the revocation of the Customs Broker License and the forfeiture of the security deposit. The appeal was rejected, emphasizing the appellant's significant regulatory violations and the importance of maintaining strict compliance with customs regulations. The Tribunal's decision underscores the responsibilities of Customs Brokers to prevent misuse of their licenses and ensure adherence to legal and regulatory standards.
|
