2019 (4) TMI 1049 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalty under Regulation 22 of CBLR, 2013 on CHA without revoking license - change of opinion - HELD THAT - What the statute requires is clear either revocation or penalty up to ₹ 50,000/-, but never both. The review authorities therefore cannot insist for adopting their views since that is undisputedly the domain of the Commissioner in stricto sensu. When the legislation in its wisdom has clearly pegged the upper limit of penalty at ₹ 50,000/-, the review authorities who are subordinate thereto can never question that limit, which is precisely done in the case on hand; they have termed the same as minimal, meagre, to quote. This is not permissible in the current set. There is no fault with the original authority s decision in choosing one over the other, since, such a power is vested only with the original authority per Regulation 20(7). It is the settled position of law that the views of higher authorities are just a change of opinion which cannot influence/substitute the decision of another authority. The present appeal is frivolous, misconceived and above all, wastage of time and money - Appeal of Revenue dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to the Commissioner's order under Regulation 20 (7) of Customs Brokers License Regulations, 2013 (CBLR, 2013) regarding the imposition of a penalty without revoking the license.
- Dispute over the penalty imposed under Regulation 22 of CBLR, 2013.
- Maintainability of the appeal by the Revenue due to the National Litigation Policy.
- Review of the penalty imposition and license revocation by the Review Committee.
- Interpretation of Regulations 20 and 22 of CBLR 2013 regarding the authority to either revoke the license or impose a penalty not exceeding a specified amount.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai involved a challenge by the Revenue against the Commissioner's order under Regulation 20 (7) of CBLR, 2013, regarding the penalty imposed without revoking the license of a Customs Broker (CB). The Revenue contested the penalty of ?50,000 under Regulation 22, arguing that the CB had knowingly cleared shipments without verifying import/export IEC codes, violating CBLR, 2013. The Commissioner's order imposed the penalty but did not revoke the license, leading to the Revenue's dissatisfaction. The Review Committee's opinion on the penalty being minimal was disputed, emphasizing the statutory limit of ?50,000 under Regulation 22. The Tribunal highlighted that the Commissioner had the authority to either revoke the license or impose a penalty up to ?50,000, but not both simultaneously.

The Tribunal examined the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal under the National Litigation Policy due to the amount involved being ?50,000. It was argued that the penalty imposition was within the statutory limits, and the Review Committee's view on leniency was deemed beyond the scope of the Regulations. The Tribunal emphasized that the original authority's discretion in choosing between revocation or penalty up to ?50,000 was in line with the statute, and higher authorities could not question this limit. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, considering it frivolous and a waste of time and resources, as the penalty was within the prescribed limits and the original authority had acted in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to impose a penalty without revoking the CB's license, emphasizing the statutory provisions of Regulations 20 and 22 of CBLR, 2013. The Tribunal's detailed analysis focused on the authority granted to the original authority to decide between revocation and penalty within the specified limit, highlighting the Review Committee's role and the limits of higher authorities' opinions in such matters.