9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 772 - AT - CustomsRevocation of Customs Broker License - forfeiture of security deposit - levy of penalty - import consignment of toys with misdeclaration and concealment of cosmetics inside was attempted to be cleared for home consumption with intent to evade customs duty - violation of Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e), 10(m) and 10(n) of CBLR - Proper considerations of submissions not done - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - There are no consideration of the submissions made by the appellant in their representation dated 29.10.2021. The order has been passed without consideration of the submissions made and is against the principles of natural justice. Appeal filed by the appellant is allowed by way of remand to the original authority for passing a speaking order after providing the appellant all the documents that are relied against them and after consideration of all the submissions made by the appellant before him. As the issue is in respect of revocation of the CHA licence impacting the right to livelihood of the concerned persons, the case is remanded and the matter in remand proceedings should be decided within two months from the receipt of this order. Appeal is allowed by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty and forfeiture of security deposit under CBLR, 2018. 2. Revocation of Customs Broker Licence under CBLR, 2018. 3. Alleged violations of Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e), 10(m), and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018. 4. Adherence to principles of natural justice, including the right to cross-examination. 5. Timeliness and validity of the Offence Report. Detailed Analysis: 1. Imposition of Penalty and Forfeiture of Security Deposit: The Principal Commissioner of Customs imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the appellant, M/s. Hayatt Shipping Pvt. Ltd., under Regulation 18 of the CBLR, 2018, and ordered the forfeiture of the entire security deposit under Regulation 14. The appellant contested this decision, arguing that the penalty and forfeiture were not justified due to procedural lapses and lack of evidence. 2. Revocation of Customs Broker Licence: The Customs Broker Licence No. 11/396 of M/s. Hayatt Shipping Pvt. Ltd. was revoked under Regulation 14 of CBLR, 2018. The appellant argued that the revocation was based on unverified statements and without proper consideration of their submissions and the right to cross-examine witnesses. 3. Alleged Violations of Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e), 10(m), and 10(n): The Inquiry Officer found the appellant guilty of violating several regulations: - Regulation 10(a): The appellant failed to obtain proper authorization from the importer, M/s. Global Enterprises. - Regulation 10(d): The appellant did not advise the client to comply with the provisions of the Customs Act and other allied Acts. - Regulation 10(e): The appellant did not exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of information provided by the client. - Regulation 10(m): The appellant did not discharge duties with utmost speed and efficiency. - Regulation 10(n): The appellant failed to verify the correctness of the Importer Exporter Code (IEC), GSTIN, and the identity of the client. 4. Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice: The appellant argued that the principles of natural justice were violated as they were not provided with the Offence Report and were denied the right to cross-examine witnesses. The Tribunal noted that the Principal Commissioner did not consider the appellant's submissions or provide a proper hearing, thus violating the principles of natural justice. 5. Timeliness and Validity of the Offence Report: The appellant contended that the proceedings were barred by time as the Offence Report was allegedly issued after a significant delay. The Tribunal highlighted the need for deep scrutiny of the Offence Report's date and its impact on the proceedings. Conclusion: The Tribunal found that the Principal Commissioner failed to consider the appellant's submissions and did not adhere to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, directing the original authority to provide all relied-upon documents to the appellant and to consider all submissions before passing a speaking order. The remand proceedings were to be completed within two months due to the impact on the appellant's right to livelihood.
|
