9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 684 - AT - CustomsSuspension of CHA license - time limitation - Held that - from the stage of initiation of the investigation, till the issue of suspension order, substantial period was lapsed, which itself establish that there was no emergency to suspend the license immediately. Therefore, the suspension of license is not necessary - The very fact in that case was that the alleged violation is of year 2005 as the import had taken place in Sept, 2005 and order of suspension was issued on 30.10.2006, which indicated that there was no emergency, which required license to be suspended. The Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of National Shipping Agency 2006 (2) TMI 306 - CESTAT, MUMBAI held that power of suspension is emergent power to be used in those cases where it is required that CHA license to be immediately suspended. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Suspension of Custom Broker License pending enquiry proceedings under CBLR, 2013. 2. Urgency of suspension of license. 3. Impact of continuation of suspension on business and employees. 4. Alleged evasion of Anti Dumping duty by the importer. 5. Obligations of Customs Broker under CBLR, 2013. 6. Interpretation of Customs Tariff Rules in the case. Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged the suspension of Custom Broker License pending enquiry proceedings under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013. The appellant argued that the suspension was not necessary as there was no urgency demonstrated by the Department in taking action. The delay in suspending the license indicated that the case was not considered serious initially by the Department. 2. The urgency of suspending the license was questioned by the appellant, highlighting the lack of immediate action despite the investigation being initiated earlier. The appellant contended that the delay in suspension would cause irreparable damage to their business and employees. Citing relevant judgments, the appellant argued against the continuation of the suspension. 3. The impact of the suspension on the appellant's business and employees was emphasized, with the appellant asserting that there was no misdeclaration or suppression of facts on their part regarding the import of Trailer Axles. The appellant maintained that they should not be held responsible for any alleged evasion of Anti Dumping duty by the importer. 4. The Department, represented by the Additional Commissioner, argued that the Customs Broker had failed in their obligation to advise the importer regarding the levy of Anti Dumping duty. The Department contended that the Customs Broker's failure to fulfill this obligation warranted the suspension of the license under the CBLR, 2013. 5. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides and observed that the suspension of the Custom Broker License was not warranted. Referring to a previous judgment, the Tribunal held that the delay in suspending the license indicated that there was no emergency requiring immediate suspension. The Tribunal also noted that in cases involving grave interpretation of law, the Customs Broker cannot be assumed to have acted with mala fide intentions. 6. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order for the continuation of the suspension of the Custom Broker License. The Principal Commissioner of Customs was directed to proceed with the enquiry under the CBLR, 2013, and the appellant was instructed to cooperate in the proceedings. The Tribunal clarified that its observations should not influence the proceedings conducted by the Principal Commissioner under the CBLR, 2013. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.
|
