9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 1058 - AT - CustomsRevokation of CHA licence, forfeiture of security deposit and imposition of penalty - Regulation 22 of the CBLR, 2013 - exporters attempted to claim huge amount of drawback by resorting to over valuation - Held that - we really fail to find out any lapses on the part of the CB so as to impose him with a lifelong ban from conducting the business. By referring to the Hon ble High Court of Delhi s order in the case of Ashiana Cargo services Vs Commissioner of Customs 2014 (3) TMI 562 - DELHI HIGH COURT , vide which the minority order of the Tribunal was upheld by setting aside the majority order. The said decision of the Delhi High Court further stands approved by the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in 2015 (8) TMI 435 - SUPREME COURT . Also it is found that in the case of Rajiv Suri Vs. CCE New Delhi, Tribunal has set aside the order of suspension on the ground that there was favourable findings of the Commissioner (A) in respect of penalty imposed upon the CHA under the Customs Act. Therefore, the impugned order is required to be set aside and also revocation of his license, the order of forfeiture of the deposit made by him and the penalty imposed are set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief
Issues:
1. Revocation of CHA license and forfeiture of security deposit. 2. Imposition of penalty under Regulation 22 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation 2013. 3. Compliance with KYC norms by the customs broker. 4. Validity of the investigation findings and penalty imposition under the Customs Act. 5. Applicability of Circulars and Regulations in determining penalty and license revocation. Issue 1: The appeal challenged the revocation of the appellant's CHA license and forfeiture of the security deposit by the Commissioner of Customs. The appellant, a licensed customs broker, handled shipping bills for exporters, including M/s. Sansam Enterprises. Investigations revealed attempts by some exporters to overvalue goods for drawback claims. The appellant's statements confirmed handling shipping bills for M/s. Sansam Enterprises. The Additional Commissioner imposed a penalty of &8377; 5 lakhs under the Customs Act and recommended license suspension. The Commissioner (A) set aside the penalty, noting compliance with regulations and circulars. Issue 2: The appellant faced a show cause notice under Regulation 22 for license revocation based on the same grounds as the Customs Act penalty. An enquiry officer affirmed the allegations, leading to license revocation. The appellant contended compliance with KYC norms and referenced the Commissioner (A)'s decision on the penalty. The Revenue argued non-compliance with KYC norms and lack of effort in verifying the exporter's genuineness. Issue 3: The compliance with KYC norms was a crucial aspect of the case. The Commissioner (A) found the appellant had verified credentials adequately through reasonable means, as per Circulars and Regulations. The Revenue contended the exporter's fraudulent practices indicated insufficient KYC compliance by the customs broker. Issue 4: The investigation findings and penalty imposition under the Customs Act were contested. The Commissioner (A) set aside the penalty, which was accepted by the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that no discrepancies were found in the exported goods, and the appellant's efforts to verify credentials were deemed sufficient. Issue 5: The applicability of Circulars and Regulations in determining penalty and license revocation was debated. The Tribunal emphasized the need for compliance with prescribed norms and referenced relevant case law, including the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court decisions. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant and overturning the revocation of the license, forfeiture of the deposit, and the imposed penalty. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the revocation of the license, forfeiture of the deposit, and the penalty imposed on the appellant, emphasizing the importance of compliance with KYC norms and relevant Circulars and Regulations in customs brokerage activities.
|
