2015 (5) TMI 486 - AT - Customs

Seizure of goods - NOCs produced were forged or bogus - Provisional release of goods on production of bank guarantee - Held that - there is no serious charges against the appellant, nor there is any alleged loss of the revenue and nor any reasons have been stated in the impugned order requiring prohibition of the appellant-Customs Broker for carrying on his business in the Mumbai Customs Commissionerate and accordingly, we set aside the impugned order. The appellant-Customs Broker shall be entitled to carry on their work as Customs Broker with immediate effect. - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Alleged submission of forged NOCs by Customs Broker for clearance of goods
- Vicarious liability of Customs Broker for acts of its employees
- Prohibition order against Customs Broker under CBLR, 2013

Analysis:
1. Alleged submission of forged NOCs by Customs Broker: The case involved the appellant, a Customs Broker, who filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of goods on behalf of an importer. The Customs authorities discovered that the NOCs produced were forged, leading to the seizure of goods. The investigation revealed that the employee of the appellant had relied on an agent to obtain the NOCs, unaware of the forgery. The appellant argued that the incident did not result in revenue loss and should not warrant punitive action.

2. Vicarious liability of Customs Broker: The Commissioner found the appellant Customs Broker prima facie responsible for the submission of bogus NOCs by its employee. The Commissioner held that the appellant could not disassociate itself from the employee's actions and imposed a prohibition order under CBLR, 2013. The appellant contended that there was no evidence of complicity by the management and that the employee's lack of knowledge led to the incident.

3. Prohibition order against Customs Broker under CBLR, 2013: The appellant challenged the prohibition order, citing financial losses and reputational damage. The appellant argued that the absence of emergent reasons did not justify the prohibition. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments, concluded that there were no serious charges against the appellant, no alleged revenue loss, and no valid reasons for the prohibition order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appellant to resume operations as a Customs Broker.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of alleged submission of forged NOCs, vicarious liability of the Customs Broker, and the validity of the prohibition order, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant due to the lack of substantial evidence and reasons for the punitive measures imposed.