2018 (5) TMI 1426 - AT - Customs

Order of Prohibition - Prohibition on CHA from operation as Customs Broker within the jurisdiction of Bangalore Customs - appellant was found to have filed the export documents With Customs authorities in respect of some of the fraudulent export - Held that - since certain violations of CBLR 2013 are evident on the part of the appellant and hence we do not think it is necessary to interfere with the prohibition order impugned in the present proceedings - Without setting aside the Order of Prohibition, we dispose of the appeal with the direction to the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore to reconsider his decision after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant to produce any additional evidence to support his case.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order of Prohibition under Regulation 23 of CBLR, 2013 issued by Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the Order of Prohibition issued under Regulation 23 of CBLR, 2013. The appellant, a licensed Customs Broker, was accused of allowing another entity to use their license for monetary gain. The investigation report highlighted fraudulent exports filed by the appellant. The Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore prohibited the appellant from operating as a Customs Broker within Bangalore Customs jurisdiction.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that the Commissioner's decision lacked proper appreciation of the appellant's role in the alleged violations. It was contended that no further steps were taken post the prohibition order, and the appellant had not received a show-cause notice within the stipulated time frame under CBLR 2013. Reference was made to the Madras High Court decision emphasizing the right to a hearing before a prohibition order.

3. The Revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner, highlighted that Regulation 23 of CBLR empowers the Commissioner to prohibit a Customs Broker without the requirement of following natural justice principles beforehand. The argument was supported by a Karnataka High Court decision, suggesting that the Tribunal should not interfere in ongoing proceedings against the appellant.

4. The Tribunal observed that serious violations of CBLR 2013 were apparent, indicating that the appellant allowed unauthorized use of their license for financial gain. While acknowledging the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal decided not to set aside the prohibition order. However, in line with the Madras High Court decision, the appellant was granted the liberty to present additional evidence to the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore to prove innocence.

5. The appeal was disposed of without overturning the prohibition order. The Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore was directed to reconsider the decision after providing the appellant with a post-decisional hearing opportunity to submit relevant evidence.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision and directions based on the facts and legal provisions discussed during the proceedings.