9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 1430 - AT - CustomsImposition of penalty - Smuggling - export of prohibited item - Red Sanders - reliability on statements - Held that - The present proceedings, based as it is on the same evidence and the same statement, that were found to have failed the test of credibility against less rigorous touchstone in Customs Act, 1962, cannot sustain that warranted in the more consequential Custom Broker Licensing Regulations. In view of the lack of any evidence to sustain the charges of complicity that were held as proof to justify that consequent detriment by the Commissioner of Customs in the impugned order, the same is set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues:
1. Appeal against revocation of license under Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013. 2. Allegations of breach of regulation 11(d), 11(n), and 17(5). 3. Interpretation of botanical description in shipping bill. 4. Authorization of 'G' card holding employee under regulation 17(5). 5. Comparison with previous penalty under Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the revocation of the license under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013, based on proceedings initiated under the Custom House Agent Licensing Regulation, 2004. The appellant, M/s Geeta Clearing & Forwarding Agencies Pvt Ltd, challenged the order issued by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai. The appellant was accused of exporting prohibited 'red sanders' without the necessary license and permit, leading to the initiation of penalty proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962, and the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013. 2. The appellant argued that the charges under regulation 11(n) were unfounded as the exporter's details were known, and there was no failure in conducting necessary checks. The appellant also contended that there was no evidence of advising the client against compliance with the Customs Act, 1962, as required by regulation 11(d). The case primarily revolved around the interpretation of whether the botanical description in the shipping bill referred to the banned 'red sanders' or a permissible variety of pterocarpus santalinus. The appellant highlighted the differences in species and argued against the allegations. 3. Regarding regulation 17(5), the appellant's counsel argued that any breach was related to the presentation location at the Customs House, not the lack of authorization. The Authorized Representative countered by claiming that the authorization of a 'G' card holding employee was illegal. The Tribunal analyzed the regulations and found that the authorization for specific purposes to a 'G' card holder did not violate the prescribed norms, and the penalty was not warranted for this breach. 4. The Tribunal considered the previous penalty proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962, which were dropped against the same appellant by the first appellate authority. It was noted that the evidence and statements used in the current case were the same as those found lacking credibility in the previous proceedings. The Tribunal concluded that the evidence did not meet the required standard under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, especially in comparison to the Customs Act, 1962. 5. Ultimately, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support the charges against the appellant, leading to the revocation of the license. The reliance on previous court decisions and legal precedents did not strengthen the case for upholding the revocation. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of M/s Geeta Clearing & Forwarding Agencies Pvt Ltd.
|
