2023 (11) TMI 115 - HC - Customs

Maintainability appeal before High Court - Substantial Question of Law - Imposition of penalty u/s 114AA of Customs Broker / CHA - Requirement to follow timeline of Regulation 16 and 17 of Customs Broker License Regulations (CBLR), 2018 while revoking the license - Whether once the order suspending the license of CHA/appellant was revoked, the proceedings of revocation of license under Regulation 17 of CBLR, 2018 could not be initiated? - violation of Regulation 10(a), 10(d) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 - HELD THAT - A careful perusal of the Section 130 of Customs Act, would show that an appeal lies to the High Court only when the impugned decision/order involves a substantial question of law . Suffice it to state that this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence brought on the record in the proceedings conducted before the Adjudicating Authority as well the CESTAT and re-appreciate the same so as to came to a different finding unless the appreciation of evidence is perverse or manifestly erroneous and/or is contrary to the law. The learned CESTAT conducted a meticulous exercise to examine and appreciate the evidence on the record and came to a categorical finding that the respondent/CHA was not guilty of non-performance of any of the statutory duties cast upon it. It is evidently brought out that there was a private arrangement between the two importers for which the respondent/CHA facilitated customs clearance in the name of companies, having valid IECs for the goods imported by the owners of the companies involved; and that the respondent/CHA had been duly authorized in this regard by Mr. Sidharth Sharma - There was proper verification on the part of the respondent/CHA with regard to genuineness of the IEC as also GSTIN Goods and Services Tax Identification Number and mere allegations that some other person was importing goods in the name of the importers, whose names were mentioned in the Bills of Entry, did not render the identity of the importer doubtful especially when there was apparently an arrangement with mutual consent of the importer and the beneficial owner and in the said circumstances there was no basis for the Adjudicating Authorities to pass the impugned order thereby suspending the license of the CHA based on the statements of the importers, which were otherwise also retracted. The learned CESTAT neither committed any patent illegality nor any manifest error in appreciating the evidence on the record. The instant appeal fails to raise any question of law. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed in limine.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the timeline of Regulation 16 and 17 of Customs Broker License Regulations (CBLR), 2018 was mandatory to be followed while revoking the license.
2. Whether the proceedings of revocation of license under Regulation 17 of CBLR, 2018 could be initiated after the suspension of the license was revoked.
3. Whether the appellant violated Regulation 10(a), 10(d), and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018.

Summary:

Issue 1: Timeline of Regulation 16 and 17 of CBLR, 2018
The CESTAT decided that the timeline of Regulation 16 and 17 of CBLR, 2018 was mandatory and had been followed. The CESTAT referred to Regulation No. 14, 16, and 17 of the CBLR and Circular No. 9/10-Customs dated 08 April 2010, relying on the expression "offence report." It held that the SCN was issued within the mandatory period of 90 days from receipt of the "offence report" and was not time-barred. The suspension of the license and its subsequent revocation did not preclude the Commissioner from conducting an inquiry under Regulation 14 and 17 of the CBLR.

Issue 2: Initiation of Revocation Proceedings Post-Suspension
The CESTAT ruled that the proceedings for revocation of the license under Regulation 17 of CBLR, 2018 could be initiated even after the suspension of the license was revoked. The suspension under Regulation 16 is immediate and depends on the seriousness of the alleged offense, while Regulation 17 prescribes a complete procedure for hearing the concerned party.

Issue 3: Violation of Regulation 10(a), 10(d), and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018
The CESTAT found that the appellant did not violate Regulation 10(a), 10(d), and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018. The CESTAT observed that the respondent/CHA had valid authorization to act on behalf of the companies in whose names the Bills of Entry were filed. There was no evidence that the appellant was aware of any misuse of IECs or that the appellant had any personal or pecuniary interest in the imports. The CESTAT concluded that the appellant had performed its duties diligently and that the allegations were based on presumptions and surmises.

Analysis and Decision:
The High Court found no merit in the appeal, stating that an appeal to the High Court under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 lies only when the impugned order involves a substantial question of law. The Court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the appreciation is perverse or manifestly erroneous. The CESTAT's findings were based on a meticulous examination of evidence, and there was no patent illegality or manifest error. The appeal did not raise any substantial question of law and was dismissed in limine.