2023 (5) TMI 305 - AT - Customs

Revocation of Customs Broker License - forfeiture of security deposit - levy of penalty - it is alleged that appellant is responsible for the use of Customs Broker License by its employees and presence of printed baggage declaration list of items containing unaccompanied baggage having the logo and the name of the appellant indicates involvement of the appellant in dealing with the goods which were found undeclared in the accompanied baggage - whether order was passed in total non-application of mind - violation of principles of natural justice. As Per Anil G. Shakkarwar HELD THAT - This Bench has carefully gone through the records of the case and the submissions made. This Bench has gone through the grounds of appeal as well as submissions made. This Bench has not found that the impugned order was passed without application of mind nor this Bench has found that the impugned order is unreasoned and arbitrary. This Bench, therefore, upholds the impugned order, does not interfere with the same and reject this appeal. As Per Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati HELD THAT - As we have observed from the Daily Order sheet copy of the enquiry proceedings conducted by the Asst. Commissioner, CGST Audit II, Mumbai annexed to appeal memo at page 203 and 204, it is an undisputed fact that Mr. Pinakin A. Sodha was an employee of CHA firm and was in possession of customs pass that got renewed for the entire period of subsistence of licence. Therefore, such evidence recorded by the Assistant Commissioner during the enquiry proceedings is admissible evidence since the same cannot stand in the footing of statement recorded under 108 of Customs Act, 1962 and the same is in compliance with Regulation 17 of CBLR 2018 - custom broker is to be held responsible for acts and omissions of his employees during their employment in view of the operation of section 17(9) of the CBLR, 2013 for which we also confirm the order of revocation of CB licence of the appellant along with imposition of penalty of ₹ 50,000/- and forfeiture of its security deposit amount made under Regulation 18 of CBRL, 2013. At this juncture, it is also required to be mentioned here that cause of action in seeking relief through this appeal has already expired since 31.12.2017 even before the order of Commissioner Customs was passed, as appellant was granted licence to operate as customs broker up to that date and thereafter nothing is available on record to indicate that appellant had sought for renewal or obtained for a new licence to operate as customs broker after expiry of its existing licence under revocation, for which outcome of this appeal would have no resultant effect on the appellant s future entitlement - The appeal is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed. FINAL ORDER - The appeal is dismissed and the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai dated 09.01.2020 is hereby confirmed.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in this case are the violation of regulations under the Custom Broker License Regulations, 2013, related to the clearance of unaccompanied baggage and the subsequent penalties imposed.

Detailed Judgment:

Issue 1: Violation of Custom Broker License Regulations
The case involved the appellant, a holder of a Customs Broker License, who was found to have violated various regulations under the Custom Broker License Regulations, 2013. The violations included failure to comply with regulations 11(a), 11(b), 11(d), 11(e), 11(f), 11(m), and 11(o. The inquiry officer conducted an inquiry and submitted a report, leading to the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 50,000, forfeiture of the security deposit, and revocation of the Customs Broker License. The appellant challenged this order before the Tribunal.

Issue 2: Defense and Arguments
During the proceedings, the appellant's counsel argued that the conclusions were based solely on statements recorded by the investigation agency, without due consideration of the defense. It was contended that the adjudicating authority did not apply its mind and merely accepted the inquiry report. The appellant also disputed the charge of failing to advise the client on compliance with Customs Act provisions, highlighting that the passenger had signed a declaration stating the absence of contraband goods.

Issue 3: Evidence and Responsibility
The authorized representative for the respondent presented evidence indicating irregularities in the handling of unaccompanied baggage by the appellant's employee. Statements revealed instances of unauthorized imports and payments made for clearance services. The appellant was held responsible for the actions of its employees, as per Section 17(9) of the Custom Broker License Regulations, 2013.

Judgment and Decision
The Tribunal carefully reviewed the case records and submissions. It upheld the impugned order, finding it reasoned and not arbitrary. The appeal was rejected, confirming the penalty, forfeiture of security deposit, and revocation of the Custom Broker License. A separate concurring opinion emphasized the responsibility of the appellant for the acts of its employees, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and confirmation of the Commissioner's order.

This summary provides a detailed overview of the legal judgment, highlighting the issues, arguments presented, evidence considered, and the final decision reached by the Tribunal.