2018 (11) TMI 577 - AT - Customs

Suspension of CHA License - validity of proceedings initiated against CHA Firm - invocation of Regulations 11(d), 17(9) and 18(c) - Held that - All these regulations put onus on the Customs Broker to do or refrain from doing certain activities - In the instant case, the Bills of Entry was not filed in the name of the appellant company at the Custom Broker s office, thus the said regulations cannot be invoked against the appellant company. There is no merit in the impugned order suspending the license of the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against suspension of Customs Broker License based on allegations of smuggling goods and involvement of a director in improper import of cigarettes.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by M/s. Inter Express Logistics Pvt. Ltd. against the suspension of their Customs Broker License due to allegations of smuggling goods. The appellant argued that they are innocent and that the allegations were directed at a director of the firm personally, not the firm itself. The appellant's counsel highlighted that no search or seizure was conducted at the appellant's premises by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The DRI had implicated the director of the firm for his alleged involvement in improper import activities. However, the appellant firm was not a party in the investigation conducted by the DRI.

The Assistant Commissioner relied on the impugned order and specific observations made in paras 10 and 11. The Tribunal noted that certain allegations were made against the director of the appellant firm, who admitted his role in assisting in the alleged smuggling of goods. However, it was clarified that the activities of the director were in his personal capacity and not on behalf of the appellant firm. The Tribunal emphasized that just because Bills of Entry were not filed in the name of the appellant firm, it does not establish the firm's involvement in smuggling activities.

The Commissioner's observations highlighted that the Bills of Entry were not filed in the appellant's name to avoid legal implications. Regulations 11(d), 17(9), and 18(c) were invoked, putting obligations on Customs Brokers. However, since the Bills of Entry were not filed in the appellant company's name at the Customs Broker's office, these regulations could not be applied against the appellant company. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the suspension of the license and set aside the order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant firm.

In conclusion, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order suspending the license of the appellant firm, as it was established that the firm was not directly involved in the alleged smuggling activities. The decision was pronounced in court on 22-3-2018, providing relief to M/s. Inter Express Logistics Pvt. Ltd.