9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 1740 - AT - CustomsRevocation of CHA License - seeking to set aside forfeiture of the security deposit - only reason cited by the Commissioner to disregard the enquiry report of the Assistant Commissioner is that the appellant s manager in his statement has admitted that they have failed to notice the discrepancy in the invoice and could did intimate the importer to file the correct documents - HELD THAT - There are no case of abetment can be made out against the appellant for the undervaluation indulged by the importer. Any customs broker normally files the documents on the basis of what has been given to them by the importer. He cannot be expected to get them verified at the foreign exporter s end. In the case laws relied upon by the appellant the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL), MUMBAI VERSUS MD. SHIPPING AGENCY 2014 (2) TMI 624 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT in similar circumstances, has held under Regulation 13(d) of CHALR the occasion to advice the importer would not arise because there was no occasion for the CHA to know or even suspect that the importer was not complying with the provisions of the Customs Act and / or advance license under which the goods were cleared. This is more so as delivery to a transporter for carriage of goods at the direction of the importer would not by itself resulted in non-compliance of the Customs Act. There is no justification for forfeiting the security deposit as has been ordered in the impugned order - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Appeal against Customs Commissioner's order regarding contravention of CHALR regulations leading to forfeiture of security deposit. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the Commissioner's order alleging contravention of Regulation 13(d) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 (CHALR) by the appellant, a Customs House Agent (CHA). The appellant, engaged in logistics services, was accused of failing to advise the importer on compliance with Customs Act provisions, resulting in undervaluation of imported goods. The enquiry report exonerated the appellant, but the Commissioner held them liable based on the manager's admission of oversight in not noticing invoice discrepancies. The appellant argued they filed documents based on importer's information and cited case laws to support their position. The Department contended that the CHA's duty was to act as the Department's eyes and ears, which the appellant failed to do, as per the Commissioner's order. The main issue in the appeal was the forfeiture of the security deposit of ?25,000 imposed by the Commissioner. The Commissioner disregarded the enquiry report, citing the manager's admission of oversight. The Tribunal found no abetment by the appellant in the importer's undervaluation. It noted that a customs broker typically files documents based on information provided by the importer and cannot be expected to verify details at the foreign exporter's end. The Tribunal referenced a Bombay High Court case where it was held that the CHA's obligation ends upon clearance of goods, and they are not required to ensure post-clearance compliance with license conditions. Similarly, another case mentioned by the Tribunal emphasized that if no discrepancies are found in the documents filed, there is no obligation for the CHA to advise the importer. The Tribunal concluded that there was no justification for forfeiting the security deposit and set aside the Commissioner's order, allowing the appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the appellant, a CHA, was not liable for the importer's undervaluation as they acted based on information provided and were not required to verify details beyond what was given to them. The Tribunal relied on legal precedents to support its decision and overturned the Commissioner's order, setting aside the forfeiture of the security deposit.
|
