9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 1158 - AT - CustomsProhibition of Custom Brokers - Held that - Commissioner had prohibited the appellant from working as Customs Broker on the ground that the Importer had not correctly classified the goods imported by them and the appellant had not properly advised in this regard. This is the only allegation against the appellant. - The root cause for the said allegation is import of a vessel for which Bill of Entry No. 698 of 2009-10 dated 09.03.2010 was filed. It is observed that the said Bill of Entry was provisionally assessed at the time of importation. The goods were also examined by the Customs Officers before the same was cleared out of customs charge. The examination report signed by Customs Officers including Deputy Commissioner of Customs, at the reverse on the said Bill of Entry - there is no justification for the Commissioner to prohibit the appellant from their work under the provisions of Regulation 23 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013. We therefore, set-aside the impugned order of the Commissioner. - Decided in favour of appellant.
Issues:
Jurisdiction of CESTAT to hear appeals on Prohibition of Customs Brokers; Allegations against the Customs Broker regarding classification of imported goods; Validity of the Prohibition Order issued by the Commissioner. Analysis: Jurisdiction of CESTAT: The issue at hand was the jurisdiction of CESTAT to hear appeals related to Prohibition of Customs Brokers. The learned Authorised Representative raised a preliminary objection, citing the decision of the Tribunal in a previous case. However, the appellant argued that Regulation 21 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, allowed for appeals to be made to CESTAT. The appellant also referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that supported this interpretation. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant regulations and the High Court decision, ruled in favor of its authority to hear appeals concerning the Regulations. The preliminary objection was rejected, and the appeal was taken up for disposal. Allegations against the Customs Broker: The Commissioner issued a Prohibition Order against the appellant Customs Broker based on allegations related to the classification of imported goods. The Commissioner contended that the appellant failed to advise the importer correctly on the classification, as required by the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations. The Prohibition Order was primarily based on this allegation. However, the Tribunal noted that the goods were provisionally assessed at the time of import, examined by Customs Officers, and later finally assessed. Despite this, a show cause notice was issued years later, questioning the classification. The Tribunal found that penalizing the appellant with a Prohibition Order solely on the grounds of alleged improper advice was unjustified. Validity of the Prohibition Order: Upon reviewing the records and circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that there was no justification for the Commissioner to prohibit the appellant from working under Regulation 23 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. In summary, the Tribunal upheld its jurisdiction to hear appeals on Prohibition of Customs Brokers, dismissed the allegations against the Customs Broker regarding goods classification, and deemed the Prohibition Order invalid due to lack of justification.
|
