9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1534 - AT - CustomsRevocation of CHA License - imposition of penalty - High Seas Sale - it was alleged that the HSS was invalid the CB filed B/E in the name of wrong person i.e. HSS buyer instead of actual importer - it was also alleged that Customs Duty was paid wrongly by HSS buyer through debit in SFIS scrip instead of payment by actual importer/ HSS seller in cash Held that - It is found from the submissions of the appellant before the Customs Authority that they have accepted their fault and wrongdoing. Once that is so what is admitted need not to be probed as held in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. System Component Pvt. Ltd. 2004 (2) TMI 65 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . The appellant also failed to inform the concerned Customs Officer Incharge of assessment of the goods about the fact of non-availability of SIFS scrip in this case. It was the duty of the CHA to guide and advise for the payment of Customs duty to the importer that the impugned SFIS scrip is not applicable in their case of the import made by the importer. Also the High Sea Sale was itself in a doubt because the same has been affected prior to the loading of consignment in the aircraft which is conceptually wrong for affecting such High Sea Sale. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
Revocation of CB License under CBLR 2013, Penalty imposition, Validity of High Sea Sale Agreement, Customs duty payment method, Compliance with CBLR regulations 11(d), 11(e), and 11(m), Due diligence by Customs Broker, Speed and efficiency in service, Misuse of SFIS scrip, Applicability of case laws. Revocation of CB License and Penalty Imposition: The judgment concerns an appeal against the revocation of a Customs Broker's (CB) license and imposition of a penalty under Regulation 20(7) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013 (CBLR 2013). The appellant's license was revoked for contravention of Regulation 11(d), 11(e), and 11(m) of CBLR 2013. Additionally, a penalty of ?25,000 was imposed on the appellant. The revocation was based on grounds such as the invalidity of the High Sea Sale Agreement, filing the bill of entry in the wrong name, and incorrect customs duty payment method. Validity of High Sea Sale Agreement: The appellant argued that the High Sea Sale Agreement in question was valid, supported by the agreement's date, and documents showing the transfer of goods before the agreement was signed. They contended that there was no specific provision rendering such agreements invalid under the Customs Act or procedural laws. The appellant emphasized that the goods had moved beyond the supplier's control before the agreement was signed, justifying its validity. Customs Duty Payment Method: Regarding the customs duty payment method, the appellant defended the use of SFIS scrip for duty payment, citing Notification No. 91/2009 - Cus. They argued that the mode of payment, whether in cash or through SFIS scrip, did not determine an attempt to evade customs duty. The appellant maintained that payment through debiting the SFIS scrip was a valid duty payment method. Compliance with CBLR Regulations 11(d), 11(e), and 11(m): The appellant contended that they complied with Regulation 11(d) by advising the client to comply with the Act and notifying the Customs about any non-compliance. They argued that no specific instance of non-compliance was proven. Similarly, the appellant defended compliance with Regulations 11(e) and 11(m) by asserting due diligence and efficiency in service provision, with no specific instances of violations recorded. Misuse of SFIS Scrip and Applicability of Case Laws: The appellant's reliance on various case laws was challenged by the respondent, highlighting the misuse of the SFIS scrip and the appellant's admission of error. The judgment also referenced a case where a CHA was not held liable for post-clearance actions, contrasting it with the present case's circumstances. Ultimately, the appellant's failure to inform Customs about the SFIS scrip's inapplicability and the doubts surrounding the High Sea Sale led to the dismissal of the appeal and upholding of the Adjudicating Authority's order. This detailed analysis covers the issues of revocation of the CB license, the validity of the High Sea Sale Agreement, customs duty payment methods, compliance with CBLR regulations, misuse of the SFIS scrip, and the applicability of relevant case laws in the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI.
|
