9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 510 - AT - CustomsRevocation of Customs Broker License - forfeiture of security deposit - levy of penalty - mis-declaration of the goods - statements made with corroborative evidences or not - violation of provisions of Rules 10(a), 10(d), 10(e), 10(f) and 13(12) of the CBLR, 2018 - HELD THAT - The Bills of Entry were filed in the name of the Appellant with the digital signature of the Authorized Representative of the Appellant, who is a G card holder. The role of Shri Jyotirmoy Biswas in filing of the Bills of Entry is not supported by any documentary evidence except the statements. Mere statements without any corroborative evidence cannot be conclusive proof to establish the alleged role of Shri Jyotirmoy Biswas in the mis-declaration. The Appellant is responsible for the works done by his employee Sh Prabir Majhi in filing the Bills of Entry. As discussed earlier, the Bills of Entry were filed as per the description available in the documents given by the Importer. If there is any misdeclaration in the documents submitted by the Importer, then they are solely responsible for the misdeclaration. To establish the complacency of the Customs Broker, it must be proved that the Customs Broker had prior knowledge about the mis-declared description, before filing the Bills of entry. There is no evidence brought on record to show that the Customs Broker was aware of the misdeclaration. The misdeclaration came to light only after proper investigation by DRI. If there is a mischief done by Sh Jyitirmoy Biswas, he can be penalized for his mischief. Since, he is not an employee of the Customs Broker, the Appellant cannot be held responsible for the misdeclaration if any, on the part of Sh. Jyotirmoy Biswas or the Importer. Thus, the allegation in the Notice that the Appellant failed to exercise proper control over his employees, is not proved and hence the allegation in the Notice about the contravention of Rule 13 ( 12) by the Customs Broker is not sustainable. The revocation of license and forfeiture of Security Deposit, as per the Order dated 08.12.21 passed by the Ld. Principal Commissioner, as not sustainable - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Order dated 18.12.2021 based on the first Inquiry Report. 2. Duties of the Customs Broker under CBLR, 2018. 3. Legitimacy of the revocation of license and forfeiture of Security Deposit. Summary: Issue 1: Validity of the Order dated 18.12.2021 based on the first Inquiry Report The Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta quashed the second Inquiry Report and directed the Principal Commissioner to proceed based on the first Inquiry Report. The Tribunal found no infirmity in finalizing the Show Cause Notice based on the first Inquiry Report. Issue 2: Duties of the Customs Broker under CBLR, 2018 The Customs Broker was alleged to have violated Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e), 10(f), and 13(12) of the CBLR, 2018. The Tribunal examined each regulation: - Regulation 10(a): The Customs Broker produced authorization from the importer, thus complying with this regulation. - Regulation 10(d): The Customs Broker filed Bills of Entry based on the importer's documents. The misdeclaration was discovered only after DRI's investigation. The Tribunal held that there was no violation as the Customs Broker could not have known the goods were misdeclared. - Regulation 10(e): No evidence showed the Customs Broker imparted incorrect information to the importer. The Tribunal found no violation. - Regulation 10(f): No evidence indicated the Customs Broker withheld information from the client. The Tribunal found no violation. - Regulation 13(12): The Tribunal found no evidence that the Customs Broker failed to supervise his employees properly. The alleged involvement of an external party, Shri Jyotirmoy Biswas, was unsupported by documentary evidence. The Tribunal held that the Customs Broker cannot be held responsible for the misdeclaration. Issue 3: Legitimacy of the revocation of license and forfeiture of Security Deposit The Tribunal concluded that the allegations against the Customs Broker were not proved. Consequently, the Order-in-Original dated 08.12.2021, which revoked the license and forfeited the Security Deposit, was deemed unsustainable and set aside. The appeal filed by the Appellant was allowed with consequent relief. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the revocation of the Customs Broker's license and the forfeiture of the Security Deposit, as the allegations were not substantiated. The Customs Broker was found to have complied with the relevant regulations under CBLR, 2018.
|
