9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 466 - AT - CustomsRevocation of Custom Broker License - forfeiture of security deposit - it was alleged that the appellant had contravened provisions of Regulation 13(1), 13(d), 13(k), 13(o) and 20(i)(a), (b) (c) of the CHALR, 2004 - it appeared to the department that the appellant had given false affidavit and secured the Customs Broker Licence by suppression of facts and submissions of false documents in contravention of provisions of Regulations 5(d) and 5(e) of the CBLR 2013, thereby contravening provisions of Regulation 18(b) of the CBLR 2013. Held that - The appellant is not required to fulfill under Regulation 5 of CBLR, 2014, inasmuch the appellant is not new applicant - Regulation 4, 5 and 7 is applicable to an applicant, who applies and undertakes examination conducted by Directorate General of Inspection of Customs Central Excise, by inviting application by publication of notice in two leading national daily newspapers in English and Hindi and, subsequently grants licence to successful applicant(s). The said affidavit has been filed in haste, as is evident from the fact that when Regulation 5 is not applicable to the appellant, there was no requirement to file any affidavit by the appellant. This gets further supported from the first letter dated 01.01.2017 filed by the appellant, to the department, wherein they have prayed to extend the validity of licence for five years i.e. for the period which was lost from the date of suspension i.e. 15.12.2010 till the date of original validity i.e. 15.12.2015. The license is restored - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Revocation of Customs Broker Licence (CB Licence) 2. Forfeiture of security amount 3. Compliance with Regulations 5(d) and 5(e) of CBLR 2013 4. Validity and renewal of CHA Licence 5. Alleged suppression of facts and submission of false documents 6. Pendency of criminal proceedings Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Revocation of Customs Broker Licence (CB Licence): The appellant's CB Licence No. R-91/2006 was revoked by the Commissioner of Customs under the impugned order-in-original dated 30.03.2018. The appellant contended that the revocation was unauthorized and illegal. The Tribunal had previously set aside the revocation order dated 13.04.16, which should have led to the restoration of the CB Licence from the date it was suspended (15.12.2010). The Tribunal found that the appellant was not required to comply with Regulation 5 of CBLR 2014, as he was not a new applicant. The Tribunal concluded that the revocation was unjustified and restored the CB Licence for ten years from the date of the order. 2. Forfeiture of Security Amount: The impugned order also included the forfeiture of the security amount of ?75,000 furnished by the appellant. The Tribunal, upon setting aside the revocation of the CB Licence, also allowed the appeal with consequential relief, implying the forfeiture was unjustified. 3. Compliance with Regulations 5(d) and 5(e) of CBLR 2013: The appellant was accused of violating Regulations 5(d) and 5(e) of CBLR 2013 by filing a false affidavit. The Tribunal found that these regulations apply to new applicants and not to existing licensees like the appellant. Therefore, the appellant was not required to file an affidavit under these regulations, and the insistence by the department was found to be unnecessary. 4. Validity and Renewal of CHA Licence: The appellant's CHA Licence had expired during the pendency of the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had initially requested the restoration of the licence for the period lost due to suspension, not for its renewal. The Tribunal directed the respondent Commissioner to extend the validity of the CB Licence for ten years from the date of the order. 5. Alleged Suppression of Facts and Submission of False Documents: The department alleged that the appellant suppressed facts and submitted false documents to secure the CB Licence. The Tribunal found that the facts regarding the appellant's involvement and the penalties imposed were known to the licensing authority. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant had not concealed any information and had complied with the department's requirements under protest. 6. Pendency of Criminal Proceedings: The department cited the pendency of criminal proceedings against the appellant as a reason for revocation. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Calcutta High Court, which held that a CHA licence cannot be denied merely on the ground of pending criminal charges if the individual is not yet convicted. The Tribunal found that the department's actions were unjustified and restored the appellant's CB Licence. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, restored the CB Licence for ten years, and directed the respondent Commissioner to implement the order within ten days. The appellant's appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
|
