9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 315 - AT - CustomsRevocation of Customs Broker License - Forfeiture of Security Deposit - imposition of penalty - failure to verify the presence of the importers in the given address - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact that the partnership firm involved in the import of the auto parts is an existing concern, duly registered having a deed for partnership and two existing partners. The IEC copy, PAN Card, telephone bill of the firm, Voter ID of the partners, copy of the partnership deed have been seen and verified by the appellant. The allegation that the IEC was obtained by submitting forged documents has no effect on the appellant as they could only verify the correctness of the documents submitted before taking up of the work for any importer. There is no stipulation or legal requirement to physically verify the business premises or residential premises of the importer and also to have a personal meeting with the importer before taking up the work for any importer. The ratio of the COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS HIM LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. 2017 (1) TMI 747 - DELHI HIGH COURT is squarely applicable in the present case and by following the said ratio, the appellant has not violated Regulation 11(n) in view of the evidence given by them before the Inquiry Officer. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Revocation of Customs Broker license under Regulation 14 read with Regulation 17 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018; Allegations of violation of Regulations 11(a), 11(d), 11(e), and 11(n) of CBLR 2013; Principles of natural justice; Consideration of evidence and inquiry report; Compliance with obligations of a Customs Broker. Revocation of Customs Broker License: The appellant's license was revoked by the Commissioner of Customs based on allegations of violating various regulations. The Commissioner issued a show-cause notice, appointed an Inquiry Officer, and subsequently passed the impugned order without considering the detailed Inquiry Report. The appellant argued that the order violated the principles of natural justice as the Commissioner did not inform them of disagreement with the Inquiry Report. The appellant contended that the Commissioner exceeded the scope of the show-cause notice and failed to provide reasons for disagreement. However, the appellant presented evidence, including an address proof from a bank, to counter the allegation of not verifying the exporter's existence at the declared address. The appellant relied on previous tribunal and court decisions to support their compliance with regulations. Allegations of Violation of Regulations: The appellant faced allegations of violating Regulations 11(a), 11(d), 11(e), and 11(n) of CBLR 2013. The Inquiry Officer dropped the first three charges but upheld the violation of Regulation 11(n) regarding verifying the exporter's existence at the declared address. The Commissioner did not consider the Inquiry Report while passing the order. The Tribunal analyzed the evidence and found that the appellant had complied with Regulation 11(n) by providing sufficient proof of the address, as physical verification of business premises was not a legal requirement. Rulings from previous cases were cited to support the appellant's position, leading the Tribunal to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. Principles of Natural Justice and Consideration of Evidence: The appellant argued that the impugned order violated the principles of natural justice by not considering the evidence and the detailed Inquiry Report. The Commissioner's failure to inform the appellant of disagreement with the Inquiry Report was highlighted as a procedural flaw. The Tribunal noted that if the Commissioner disagreed with the Inquiry Report, the appellant should have been given an opportunity to make submissions. The Tribunal reviewed the evidence, including the appellant's submissions and previous legal decisions, to conclude that the appellant had not violated Regulation 11(n) and thus overturned the impugned order. Compliance with Obligations of a Customs Broker: The case involved a detailed examination of the obligations of a Customs Broker under Regulations 11(a), 11(d), 11(e), and 11(n) of CBLR 2013. The Inquiry Officer dropped the first three allegations but upheld the violation of Regulation 11(n). The appellant's compliance with this regulation was established through the submission of relevant documents, leading the Tribunal to find in favor of the appellant and allow the appeal with consequential relief. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's evaluation of evidence, and the ultimate decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
|
