9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 243 - AT - CustomsRevocation of Customs Broker License - 42,00,000 number of Gutkha pouches - prohibited item - whether appellant knew that there was Gutkha in the consignment which was being cleared from customs by his firm? - statement given by appellant under pressure - retraction of statements - HELD THAT - The obligation of obtaining the authorisation from the actual exporter was not discharged by the appellant. This is corroborated by the statements of others involved in this smuggling endeavour. Thus there is sufficient corroboration to the confessional statement of the appellant. Therefore mere retraction of his statement cannot negate the action of the appellant. Otherwise also, the confessional statement was recorded by the Custom officer which is different from the police officer. The retraction by the appellant cannot negate the evidentiary value of his confessional statements. Further, the denial of request for cross examination, in the face of the said statement of the appellant, cannot be a violation. It is also interesting to note that other than the appellant, none of the others investigated in this offence have retracted their statements. The Delhi High Court in the case of Jasjeet Singh Marwaha 2009 (2) TMI 57 - DELHI HIGH COURT has held that the CHA can be held responsible for the violation of the Customs Act, and not only the violation of CHALR (now referred to as CBLR). The appellant was aware that the IEC of Shubham Garg of M/s Navrang Jewel and Export was being used by Salim Dola for export of Gutka, which is a prohibited item. It has to be concluded that the appellant was very much aware of the nature of the consignment and aware of the fact that the IEC did not belong to the actual exporter of the consignment. He had indulged in this offence for monetary gains. There are no reason to interfere with the findings in the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether there were sufficient grounds for the adjudicating authority to revoke the Customs Broker (CB) license of the appellant. 2. Whether the denial of cross-examination of certain individuals violated the principles of natural justice. 3. Whether the appellant had contravened the provisions of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013 and 2018. Summary of Judgment: 1. Grounds for Revocation of CB License: The Tribunal examined if there were sufficient grounds for revoking the CB license of the appellant. The appellant argued that his statements were retracted and should not hold evidentiary value. However, the Tribunal noted that other statements corroborated the appellant's involvement. The adjudicating authority found that the appellant was aware of the actual exporter, Salim Dola, and that the IEC used was in the name of Shubham Garg. The Tribunal held that the retraction of the appellant's statements could not negate the evidentiary value of his confessions, as the confessional statements were recorded by Customs officers, not police officers. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Surjeet Singh Chhabra Vs UOI, emphasizing that a confession, even if retracted, binds the appellant. 2. Denial of Cross-Examination: The appellant requested the cross-examination of several individuals, which was denied by the Inquiry Officer. The Tribunal held that in light of the appellant's confessional statements, the denial of cross-examination did not violate natural justice principles. The Tribunal found that the statements of others involved in the smuggling operation corroborated the appellant's involvement, making the denial of cross-examination justifiable. 3. Contravention of CBLR Provisions: The Tribunal found that the appellant had contravened various provisions of CBLR, 2018 and 2013. The appellant failed to verify the antecedents of the exporter and the correctness of the IEC. The Tribunal noted that the appellant facilitated the smuggling of prohibited goods (Gutkha) and prepared fabricated documents. The Tribunal cited several precedents, including the Delhi High Court's decision in Jasjeet Singh Marwaha, which held that a CHA could be held responsible for violations of the Customs Act, not just CHALR (now CBLR). Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the revocation of the CB license, forfeiture of the security deposit, and the imposition of a penalty on the appellant. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the adjudicating authority's findings. The Tribunal emphasized that fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings, citing the Supreme Court's decisions in Commissioner of Customs Vs Aafloat Textiles (P) Ltd. and Munjal Showa Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise.
|
