9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 574 - AT - CustomsRevocation of license of Customs Broker - Prohibition order against Customs Broker - prohibiting the appellant from working in Chennai Customs Jurisdiction - undeclared items were found in the container - Regulation 17 of CBLR 2013 - HELD THAT - The Bill of Entry dated 31.01.2017 was filed by the appellant on behalf of M/s. J. J. Enterprises at Customs Chennai and statement dated 26.7.2017 was recorded from Shri B. Muthuramalingam, Assistant Manager of M/s. Global Agencies, Chennai. Based on the offence committed by the Customs Broker, the prohibition order was issued on 15.9.2017 and show-cause notice was issued on 27.10.2017 by the Commissioner Customs Chennai. Based on the alleged offence at Chennai and on the basis of documents, another show-cause notice dated 23.1.2018 was issued at Cochin Commissionerate which is parent Commissionerate of the Customs Broker. Reliance placed in Final Order No.41814/2018 dated 2.5.2018 2018 (8) TMI 1603 - CESTAT CHENNAI wherein the Tribunal has observed We do not find any material ground for issuance of the prohibition order or its continuance. Moreover, it is to be stated that such continuation of the probation order without prescribing a time-limit would be bye passing Regulation 20 with regard to suspension / revocation of the licence. There are no merit in upholding the impugned order since the basis appears to be the offence committed at Chennai which has been set aside by the Tribunal Chennai Bench - the impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the revocation of a customs broker's license under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation (CBLR) 2013, based on violations of Regulation 11(a), 11(d), and 11(n), and the forfeiture of the security deposit. The appellant challenged the revocation of the license and forfeiture of the security deposit. Revocation of License and Forfeiture of Security Deposit: The appellant, a customs broker, was found to have undeclared items in a consignment filed on behalf of an importer, leading to a discrepancy in the declared value. This resulted in a prohibition order by the Customs Commissionerate at Chennai, revoking the appellant's license under Regulation 17 of CBLR 2013. Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin, leading to the revocation of the license and forfeiture of the security deposit for gross non-compliance with CBLR 2013 provisions. Challenging the Impugned Order: The appellant contended that the revocation of the license was harsh, especially after a Tribunal set aside a previous order related to the same offence. The appellant argued that the impugned order was illegal and unsustainable, citing the expiry of the limitation period for issuing the notice as per Regulation 20(1) of CBLR 2013. The appellant relied on various judgments to support the claim of limitation. Revenue's Position and Legal Precedents: The Authorized Representative for the Revenue supported the Commissioner's findings and cited legal precedents to strengthen the case. The Revenue relied on decisions such as D.M. Mehta & Bros. vs. CC (General), Mumbai and Sri Kamakshi Agency vs. CC, Madras among others to bolster their argument. Tribunal's Decision and Conclusion: After hearing both sides, the Tribunal considered the facts surrounding the prohibition order and the appellant's compliance. The Tribunal referenced a previous order that highlighted the appellant's authorization and due diligence in the transaction. The Tribunal found no merit in upholding the impugned order, especially since the basis for revocation had been set aside by the Tribunal Chennai Bench. Consequently, the impugned order revoking the license and forfeiting the security deposit was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. Final Decision: The Tribunal pronounced the order in open court on 09.02.2024, setting aside the revocation of the customs broker's license and the forfeiture of the security deposit, based on the lack of merit in upholding the impugned order.
|
