2016 (9) TMI 1093 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA licence - forfeiture of security deposit - regulation no. 19(1) of the CBLR 2013 - imposition of penalty - Held that - It is the responsibility of the CB to question the importer or exporter regarding the legal provisions and procedures. Also it is their duty to invite attention of the Department if they come across any fraud or duty evasion, any import or export related activity in stead of certifying as a trustful intermediate between department and trade, but facilitate the fraud as well as to safeguard Government s revenue. The CB in this case had violated rules and regulations stipulated in CBLR 2013. - the decision in the case Commissioner of Customs Versus M/s K.M. Ganatra & Co. 2016 (2) TMI 478 - SUPREME COURT has been relied upon. Violation of Regulations of CBLR - revocation of licence and forfeiture of security deposit justified - imposition of penalties upheld - appeal rejected - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Revocation of Custom Broker license and forfeiture of security deposit based on violation of Customs regulations.

Analysis:
1. The appellant's Custom Broker license was revoked, and the security deposit forfeited due to violations of Customs regulations. The case involved evasion of customs duty through mis-declaration and undervaluation of imported goods. The investigation revealed that the appellant's employee, without proper authority, fabricated import documents leading to duty evasion.

2. The Commissioner of Customs suspended and subsequently revoked the appellant's license after issuing show cause notices and conducting a detailed enquiry. The appellant contended that they were not provided with a copy of the enquiry report, but the Commissioner found them in violation of various regulations, leading to the revocation.

3. The appellant argued that the Commissioner did not consider all evidence and circumstances, but the Deputy Commissioner's report confirmed the violations. The Commissioner highlighted the serious nature of the offense, including top management involvement in allowing unauthorized individuals to handle customs-related work.

4. The learned AR supported the impugned order, emphasizing compliance with natural justice principles. The Commissioner concluded that the appellant facilitated fraud and failed to fulfill their obligations under the regulations, justifying the revocation of the license and imposition of penalties.

5. The judgment referenced relevant case laws to support the decision, emphasizing the importance of Customs House Agents in maintaining trust and compliance with regulations. The Tribunal upheld the revocation of the Custom Broker license based on the clear violations of Customs regulations and the seriousness of the offense.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the revocation of the Custom Broker license and the forfeiture of the security deposit, citing serious violations of Customs regulations and the involvement of top management in facilitating fraudulent activities. The judgment emphasized the importance of Customs regulations and the obligations of Custom Brokers to maintain integrity and compliance in import and export activities.