9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 1063 - AT - CustomsRevocation of CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - violation of various CBLR Regulations - it was alleged that CB did not declare the details of the imported goods correctly in the bill of entry - mis0declaration of goods - Held that - The appellant has obtained the authorization from Shri Dinesh which becomes null and void since he was not the actual importer. Consequently the infraction of Regulation 11 (a) sands established. Regarding Regulation 11(d), the CB is expected to advice their client, to comply with the provisions of the Customs Act, it stands established that the appellant has not met the actual importer. In view of above, the failure to observe Regulation 11(d) stands established. Regulation 11(e) - Held that - Shri Vinod Kumar was the actual beneficiary of all the transactions but the entire documentation was shown in the name of M/s Shiva Enterprises. The CB has made no efforts to verify the functioning of his client at the given address and the correctness of IEC code number. It is evident that the CB has failed to verify antecedents, correctness of IEC details, etc. - Both the persons have admitted the fact that Shri Vinod Kumar is the owner of the imported goods but Shri Dinesh was shown as proprietor of M/s Shiva Enterprises. Regarding the CB, Shri Vinod Kumar has been changing his stand as to whether the CB was aware of the mis-declaration in the consignment. Anyhow, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are convinced that the appellant is guilty of the violation of CBLR, 2013 but considering the peculiar circumstances, we are also of the view that revoking the CB license would be too grave a penalty to be imposed for the above violation - The ends of justice will be met by imposing a penalty of ₹ 50,000/- on the appellant, in addition to forfeiture of the whole amount of security deposit. Revoking of CB license is set-aside and penalty of ₹ 50,000/- is imposed, in addition to forfeiture of security deposit - appeal allowed in part.
Issues:
Revocation of Customs Broker License and forfeiture of security deposit due to violation of various regulations under CBLR, 2013. Analysis: Violation of Regulation 11(a): The appellant, a Customs Broker (CB), filed a bill of entry for goods imported by M/s Shiva Enterprises based on information provided by the importer. However, upon examination, undeclared counterfeit goods were found, along with mis-declared goods. The investigation revealed that the actual owner, Shri Vinod Kumar, imported the goods using the name of Shri Dinesh. The CB failed to obtain authorization from the actual importer, leading to a violation of Regulation 11(a) of the CBLR, 2013. The adjudicating authority upheld this violation, resulting in the revocation of the CB license and forfeiture of the security deposit. Violation of Regulation 11(d): Regulation 11(d) requires the CB to advise the importer on compliance with Customs Act provisions. In this case, the CB failed to meet the actual importer, Shri Vinod Kumar, thereby violating Regulation 11(d). The failure to observe this regulation was established during the proceedings. Violation of Regulations 11(e) and 11(n): Regulations 11(e) and 11(n) mandate CBs to exercise due diligence, verify antecedents of importers, and ensure correctness of information. The CB in this case did not verify the actual beneficiary of the transactions, Shri Vinod Kumar, and failed to confirm the accuracy of the IEC code and client identity. This lack of verification led to violations of Regulations 11(e) and 11(n). Judgment: After hearing arguments from both sides, the Tribunal found the appellant guilty of violating the CBLR, 2013 regulations. However, considering the circumstances, the Tribunal deemed revoking the CB license as too severe a penalty. Instead, a penalty of &8377; 50,000 was imposed, along with the forfeiture of the security deposit. The appeal was partially allowed, setting aside the revocation of the CB license and imposing the mentioned penalty. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the violations of regulations by the appellant, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision to impose a penalty instead of revoking the Customs Broker license.
|
