9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 125 - AT - CustomsRevocation of CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - 200 cartons of foreign brand cigarettes were found concealed behind the declared goods - Held that - DRI had intercepted the consignment covered under Bill of Lading dt. 29.09.2015 imported by M/s.Prince Traders even before filing of Bill of Entry. This aspect has been taken note of in the Inquiry Report dt. 08.04.2016 pursuant to proceedings under Regulation 20 of the CBLR, 2013 - the Inquiry Officer, appointed under CBLR 2013, has opined that there is no substantive case to level charges violation of Regulation 11(a), (b), (n), (e) & (k) of the CBLR, 2013. The Inquiry Officer has in fact clearly stated that he has not found anything substantial that can merit proposing revoking the license of the appellant or imposing the penalty. The Inquiry Officer has categorically reported that at the most, appellant may be given a strict warning. This Tribunal in the case of Parekh Cargo Logistics 2016 (11) TMI 339 - CESTAT MUMBAI has held that it cannot be a ground for revocation of CHA broker license which results in denial of right to livelihood. But in the instant case, even such an infraction is not forthcoming. Revocation of License and forfeiture of deposit is not warranted - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Customs Broker's liability for concealment of goods during customs clearance; Compliance with Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR) 2013; Revocation of Customs Broker License and forfeiture of security deposit. Analysis: 1. Customs Broker's Liability for Concealment of Goods: The case involved the appellant, a Customs Broker, who handled the customs clearance of a consignment declared as A4 size paper but was found to contain concealed foreign brand cigarettes. The Commissioner ordered the revocation of the Customs Broker License and forfeiture of the security deposit based on the findings of the investigation. The appellant argued that they should not be held responsible for the concealment as they did not file the Bill of Entry, and the investigation did not establish any act of commission or omission on their part leading to false declarations. 2. Compliance with Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR) 2013: The appellant contended that the show cause notice pre-concluded the issue and proposed penalties under Regulation 18, contrary to legal principles. They also argued that the Commissioner exceeded the scope of the notice in passing the order and failed to consider that the past clearances by the importer did not conclusively prove any wrongdoing. The appellant emphasized that the revocation of the Customs Broker License should not be based solely on depositions without tangible evidence. 3. Revocation of Customs Broker License and Forfeiture of Security Deposit: The Inquiry Report highlighted that the Customs Broker did not file any documents or Bill of Entry directly, and there was no substantial evidence linking them to the smuggling activities. The Inquiry Officer recommended a strict warning rather than revocation of the license. Despite this, the adjudicating authority disregarded these findings and ordered the revocation of the license and forfeiture of the security deposit. The Tribunal found that such a decision was unwarranted, as there was no clear culpability established against the appellant, and the Inquiry Officer's report did not support the severe punishment imposed. 4. Judicial Precedents and Legal Interpretation: The Tribunal referenced previous judgments, such as K.S. Swant & Co. Vs. CC and Parekh Cargo Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC Pune, to support the argument that even signing blank forms should not lead to the revocation of a Customs Broker License unless substantial wrongdoing is proven. In this case, the Tribunal found no substantial evidence to warrant the severe punishment imposed by the adjudicating authority. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order revoking the Customs Broker License and forfeiting the security deposit, emphasizing that such punitive actions should only be taken when the culpability of the broker is established beyond doubt and of a grave nature, which was not the case in this instance.
|
