2024 (9) TMI 10 - HC - Customs

Revocation of Customs Broker License - forefeiture of security deposit - levy of penalty - Overvaluation of cargo of rough diamonds imported from Hongkong and Dubai - denial of cross-examination without specific grounds and lack of reasons - vaiolation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The CESTAT has observed that respondent had specifically prayed for cross-examination of certain persons whose statements were relied upon in the Show Cause Notice to implicate respondent. The cross-examination was denied without any specific grounds. The CESTAT has also observed that under Sub Regulation (4) of Regulation 17 of the CBLR, the customs broker shall be entitled to cross-examination of the persons whose statements were used as grounds for forming the basis of the inquiry proceedings and in case, the inquiry officer declined to permit cross-examination of such persons, then he is required to record the reasons in writing for denial. The CESTAT has come to a finding that no reasons have been recorded. The CESTAT has also noted that there are allegations that certain persons were in telephonic touch with respondent but the contents of the conversation have not been brought on record for a specific finding that appellant had active role in alleged over valuation of the imported consignment. There are no reason to interfere because when action is being taken under the provisions of the CBLR, the department was duty bound to comply with the provisions of the CBLR when the broker prays for cross-examination of those persons on whose statements reliance has been placed to implicate the broker - this is the only ground on which the appeal has been allowed and it is found that neither in the proposed questions of law nor in the grounds of appeal, this issue has even been raised. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

The Bombay High Court dismissed an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, challenging a CESTAT order. The respondent, a Customs Broker, had penalties imposed and license revoked for alleged violations of CBLR. CESTAT allowed the appeal due to denial of cross-examination without specific grounds and lack of reasons recorded. The High Court upheld CESTAT's decision, emphasizing compliance with CBLR provisions. The appeal was dismissed.