9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 636 - AT - CustomsCompliance with time limits prescribed in terms of Regulation 20 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 for revoking licence or imposing penalty - Revocation of Customs Broker Licence - forfeiture of security deposit - levy of penalty - mis-declaration and fraudulent export of Uric Acid by M/s. Royal Enterprises through the Appellant (Customs broker) by over valuation of export consignment to claim undue higher drawback - HELD THAT - In terms of Regulation of 20 of CBLR, 2013, the Commissioner of Customs is mandated to issue a Show Cause Notice within 90 days from the date of receipt of offence report, the Assistant / Deputy Commissioner of Customs nominated has to complete the inquiry and submit his report within 90 days from the date of issuance of Show Cause Notice and then after considering the inquiry report and Customs Broker s representation, the Commissioner is required to issue the order of revocation or revocation of the suspension within 90 days from the date of submission of the inquiry report. In the instant case, the Show Cause Notice was issued on 17.12.2017 well within the time limit of 90 days from the date of receipt of the abovesaid offence report in terms of Regulation 20(1) of CBLR,2013. It is also found that the inquiry report was submitted by the inquiry officer on 12.03.2018 within a period of 90 days from the issuance of notice in terms of Regulation 20(5) of CBLR, 2013. The Adjudicating Authority has issued the Order-in-Original on 01.06.2018 well within the time period of 90 days from the date of submission of report by the inquiry officer as per Regulation 20(7) of CBLR, 2013. Hence, the issuance of Show Cause Notice, inquiry report and its adjudication has been carried out strictly in terms of Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013. The proceedings for revocation of licence of the Appellant are not hit by limitation. Revocation of License - HELD THAT - The Customs Broker to derive the financial benefit out of fraudulent transactions indulged in by Mr. Ulhas Gate of M/s. A.P. Cargo Enterprises who was the H card holder had allowed his license to be misused and abused - Fabrication of any documents is a very serious matter and requires to be seriously dealt with. The impugned order dated 01.06.2018 of the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai is partly modified to set aside the revocation of Licence, but, the imposition of fine and forfeiture of security is upheld - appeal allowed in part.
Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with time limits prescribed in terms of Regulation 20 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013. 2. Justification for revocation of the Customs Broker's Licence. Summary: Issue 1: Compliance with Time Limits The appellant argued that the Department did not adhere to the mandatory time limits for issuing a Show Cause Notice (SCN) and conducting an inquiry as per Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013. The appellant cited various judgments asserting that the time limits are mandatory. However, the Tribunal found that the relevant offence report dated 14.06.2017 was received by Chennai Customs on 18.09.2017. The SCN was issued on 17.12.2017, the inquiry report was submitted on 12.03.2018, and the Order-in-Original was issued on 01.06.2018. All actions were within the prescribed 90-day and nine-month time limits. Thus, the Tribunal concluded that the proceedings were not hit by limitation. Issue 2: Justification for RevocationThe investigations revealed that the appellant allowed M/s. A.P. Cargo Enterprises to use their Customs Broker Licence for monetary consideration, leading to fraudulent export activities. The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence and contravened various provisions of CBLR, 2013. The Tribunal referred to the decision in Noble Agency Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, emphasizing the trust and obligations of a Customs Broker. However, considering the appellant had been out of business for over six years, the Tribunal ordered the re-issuance of the licence subject to procedural requirements but upheld the imposition of a penalty and forfeiture of the security deposit. In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the revocation of the licence but maintaining the penalty and forfeiture of security.
|
