9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 243 - AT - CustomsSuspension of Customs Broker License - allegation of facilitating the attempted export of overvalued consignments of M/s Axon International under three shipping bills - HELD THAT - Regulation 16(1) of CBLR, 2018 allows suspension of the License in appropriate case where immediate action is necessary. In the instant case, the Commissioner has not adduced any reason of 'immediate necessity' to exercise the power under Regulation 16(1) of CBLR, 2018 to pass the impugned order. In the instant case, the suspension of the License was effected on 23.06.2023, after a period of four years and four months for the alleged offence committed in April 2019. It is also observed that the License of the appellant was revoked on 23.11.2019 with respect to another alleged offence and the said revocation order was set aside by this Tribunal M/S. S.K. KANJILAL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIRPORT ADMINISTRATION) , KOLKATA 2022 (8) TMI 74 - CESTAT KOLKATA . Since, this alleged offence was also well within the knowledge of the department, suspension of the license, if any, warranted could have been initiated along with the other offence where their License was suspended. The action of the department in waiting for more than four years and suspending the License immediately after setting aside the earlier revocation order, cannot be sustained in the eye of the law. Thus, there is no immediate necessity to suspend the license. The Commissioner has not recorded any valid reason warranting immediate suspension of the License. Accordingly, the impugned order suspending the License is liable to be set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Timeliness and necessity of license suspension. 2. Responsibility of Customs Broker for declarations in export documents. 3. Justification for immediate suspension under Regulation 16(1) of CBLR, 2018. Summary: 1. Timeliness and Necessity of License Suspension: The Appellant argued that the suspension of their license in 2023 for an alleged offence in 2019 was unwarranted, especially since their license had already been revoked for another offence during the same period, which was later set aside by the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the suspension occurred four years and four months after the alleged offence, and emphasized that suspension under Regulation 16 of CBLR, 2018 should be exercised in appropriate cases where immediate action is necessary. The Tribunal cited the case of International Cargo Agents Vs Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, which held that delay in ordering suspension fetters the issue, thus setting aside the suspension order. 2. Responsibility of Customs Broker for Declarations in Export Documents: The Appellant contended that a Customs Broker cannot be held responsible for declarations made in import/export documents unless there is evidence of prior knowledge of the alleged misdeclaration. They relied on the decision in Kunal Travels (Cargo) vs CC(I&G), IGI Airport, New Delhi, which held that a Customs House Agent is not an inspector to weigh the genuineness of the transaction. 3. Justification for Immediate Suspension Under Regulation 16(1) of CBLR, 2018: The Tribunal observed that Regulation 16(1) allows for suspension of a Customs Broker's license in appropriate cases where immediate action is necessary. The Commissioner failed to provide reasons for the 'immediate necessity' to suspend the license. The Tribunal referenced the case of Rubee Air Freight Ltd. v. CC (Airport & Administration), Kolkata, which held that immediate suspension is not warranted without urgent necessity. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the investigation had already been completed, and there was no apprehension of the Customs Broker interfering with the investigation or tampering with evidence. The Tribunal concluded that the suspension of the license after such a long period was not justified and set aside the impugned order. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order suspending the Appellant's license, finding no immediate necessity for the suspension and recognizing the undue delay in taking action. The appeal filed by the Appellant was allowed.
|
