9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 971 - AT - CustomsSuspension of CHA License - imposition of penalty - benefit of Duty Free Import Authorisation (DFIA) - it appeared that CHA failed to discharge his responsibilities and duties cast upon him as custom broker under the provisions of CBLR, 2013 and he appeared to have abetted for export of goods by not discharging his responsibilities, duties and obligations cast upon him - HELD THAT - The allegations of Revenue against the appellant CHA are prima-facie vague for the reason that the offence report is based on one show cause notice No. 121/2018, issued in September, 2018 on the aforementioned parties being M/s Encanterra Traders Private Limited, M/s Chef s Choice, M/s Hira Traders and their Directors/Partners / Prop. wherein the appellant CHA has not been made a co-noticee. Further, there is no allegation of connivance on the part of the appellant CHA firm with the aforementioned parties. Further, the offence report has been issued almost after one year when the offence was detected in October, 2017 and investigations began. We also find that the appellant have not violated any of the CHA regulations and have obtained proper documents required to meet the requirement of KYC. It is nowhere alleged, in what way the appellant did any irregularity in handling export consignment, for which they have filed the Bill of Entry on behalf of the said M/s Encanterra Traders Private Limited. The appellant have had also verified the IEC code of the said client M/s Encanterra Traders Private Limited and found to be in order. Further, no physical verification of the premises or address of the IEC holder is mandated in the CBLR regulation, nor it is a general requirement. Thus, there is no case made out against the appellant CHA, as alleged in the offence report or in the impugned order of suspension. Accordingly, the impugned order of suspension is set aside. CHA license restored - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of suspension of the appellant's Customs Broker License (CBL). 2. Allegations of mis-declaration and misuse of Duty-Free Import Authorization (DFIA). 3. Compliance with Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018. 4. Timeliness of the offence report submission. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Suspension of the Appellant's Customs Broker License (CBL): The appellant challenged the suspension of their CB license, which was confirmed by the Order-in-Original dated 22.11.2018. The suspension was based on an offence report indicating that the appellant facilitated M/s Encanterra Traders Private Limited in exporting goods under DFIA without proper verification, thus failing to discharge their responsibilities under CBLR, 2013. The Tribunal found that the allegations were vague and that the appellant had not violated any CHA regulations. The Tribunal set aside the suspension order and directed the restoration of the appellant's license. 2. Allegations of Mis-declaration and Misuse of DFIA: The offence report alleged that certain importers, including M/s Encanterra Traders Private Limited, mis-declared maize-popcorn as maize-corn to avail DFIA benefits. The appellant was accused of facilitating these exports without proper KYC verification. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had only filed shipping bills for exports and was not involved in the import mis-declaration. The Tribunal found no evidence of connivance or illegal gain by the appellant and noted that the appellant had obtained necessary documents to verify the genuineness of M/s Encanterra Traders Private Limited. 3. Compliance with CBLR, 2018: The respondent Commissioner held that the appellant violated Regulations 10a, 10d, 10e, and 10n of CBLR, 2018. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant had complied with the KYC requirements and had not violated any CHA regulations. The Tribunal also noted that there was no mens rea alleged against the appellant, and the appellant had retracted their statement given under duress. 4. Timeliness of the Offence Report Submission: The appellant argued that the offence report was submitted almost a year after the alleged offence was detected, violating the CBEC Circular No. 09/2010, which stipulates that offence reports should be submitted within 30 days of detection. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, noting the delay in the submission of the offence report and the lack of any immediate action against the appellant. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the allegations against the appellant were vague and not supported by evidence. The appellant had complied with the necessary regulations and had not engaged in any illegal activities. The Tribunal set aside the suspension order and directed the respondent Commissioner to restore the appellant's license within three weeks.
|
