2018 (12) TMI 1045 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA License - contravention of regulations 10, 11 (a) (b) (d) (e) 11 (m) of CBLR, 2013 - Held that - There is nothing on record that the appellant ever expressed his grievance before the senior authorities of the alleged coercion. In absence thereof and in absence of any evidence proving the statement to be incorrect, it stands established that the appellant had failed to observe his duties as custom broker as he was burdened with statutorily - the appellant has not produced any evidence contrary to the said statement. The only emphasis about KYC documents being mailed to him by Mr. Narula is not sufficient to satisfy that appellant was otherwise observing his statutory duties. The CHA is supposed to safeguard the interest of both the importers and the customs. A lot of trust is pose in CHA by the importers/ exporters as well as by the Govt. Agencies. - any contravention of such obligations even without intent would be sufficient to invite upon the CHA the punishment listed in the regulation. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Allegations of mis-declaration of imported goods to evade duty by the customs broker.
- Contravention of duties under CBLR, 2013 by the customs broker.
- Revocation of customs broker license and forfeiture of security amount.
- Appeal against the revocation of license and penalty imposed.

Analysis:
1. The case involves allegations of mis-declaration of imported goods with intent to evade duty by the customs broker, who allowed others to use his license for clearance of consignments. The Department alleged that the broker failed to advise clients to comply with customs laws, contravening regulations under CBLR, 2013. An offense report led to the revocation of the broker's license and forfeiture of the security amount.

2. The appellant argued that the Department's allegations were based on presumptions and surmises. Evidence, including KYC documents emailed to the broker, was presented to refute the claims. The appellant denied transferring or selling the license. The appellant cited a precedent to support the appeal.

3. The Department rebutted, stating that the adjudicating authority examined evidence, including statements and documents recovered during the investigation. The Department argued that the order was well-founded and urged dismissal of the appeal.

4. The Tribunal found that the appellant violated CBLR, 2013 regulations by allowing others to use the license without proper authorization. Statements from the appellant indicated subletting of work and lack of interaction with importers, leading to non-compliance with duties under the regulations.

5. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's admission of allowing others to use the license for a commission fee constituted a violation. The appellant's failure to observe statutory duties as a customs broker was established, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

6. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of customs brokers in safeguarding the interests of importers and customs. Any contravention of obligations, even without intent, could result in punishment. Delegation of functions by a broker holds them responsible for fraudulent activities of third parties.

7. The Tribunal upheld the revocation of the customs broker license and the penalty imposed, concluding that there was no infirmity in the order. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision made.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on the evidence and relevant regulations.