9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 316 - AT - CustomsRevocation of Customs Broker license - Forfeiture of Security Deposit - imposition of penalty - non-compliance with the Regulations 11(a), 11(d), 11(e) and 11(n) of CBLR 2013 - HELD THAT - In the present case there are serious allegations against the appellant regarding the violation of various Regulations as to not properly authorized by the importer and not advised the importer regarding the compliance of Customs Act and also not verified the IE code, antecedents of the importer and the premises of the importer. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has considered each and every submission raised by the appellant and has dealt with the same. The appellant has admitted that they have not verified the identity of the importer. All the documents were received from Shri Dinesh Joshi of M/s. Alfa Exim who is neither the importer nor their authorized representative. Further, it is found that during the investigation, statement of Shri Sarfraz and Shri Majid were recorded and they have admitted that they have imported the goods and paid the duty by cash to Shri Dinesh Joshi which was paid by him. Also, appellant raised the bill of service charges on M/s. Alfa Exim and not on the actual importers. Also, the stand of the appellant that Shri Damodhar Moddiboina was not the authorized person by the appellant to handle the KYC verification and the same was done by Shri Bahusali, is not tenable because Shri Damodhar Moddiboina in his statement given before the Customs authority during the investigation never stated that Shri Bahusali is the KYC person. Moreover, all the documents were submitted by him. The appellant has violated the Regulations as alleged in the show-cause notice and are guilty of gross negligence in performance of their duties as Customs Broker - the revocation of Customs Broker licence is a harsh punishment which will deprive the appellant from their livelihood along with livelihood of all those people working with them - revocation is set aside - forfeiture of security deposit upheld - penalty also upheld - appeal allowed in part.
Issues Involved:
1. Revocation of Customs Broker Licence 2. Forfeiture of Security Deposit 3. Imposition of Penalty 4. Compliance with Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR) Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Revocation of Customs Broker Licence: The appeal challenges the revocation of the Customs Broker licence under Regulation 14 read with Regulation 17 of the CBLR 2018. The Customs Broker's licence was initially revoked by an Order-in-Original dated 03/01/2019. The appellant argued that the licence had already been revoked and security deposit forfeited in another proceeding, rendering the current proceedings redundant. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant had violated Regulations 11(a), 11(d), 11(e), and 11(n) of the CBLR 2013. The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to verify the identity of importers, accepted documents from unauthorized persons, and did not exercise due diligence. Despite these findings, the Tribunal considered the revocation of the licence a harsh punishment that would deprive the appellant and their employees of their livelihood. Thus, the Tribunal set aside the revocation order but upheld the forfeiture of the security deposit and the penalty. 2. Forfeiture of Security Deposit: The Commissioner had ordered the forfeiture of the security deposit in the impugned order. The Tribunal upheld this forfeiture, citing the appellant's failure to comply with the obligations under the CBLR. The appellant's actions demonstrated gross negligence, and the Tribunal found sufficient evidence to support the forfeiture of the security deposit. 3. Imposition of Penalty: The Commissioner imposed a penalty of ?50,000 on the appellant under Regulation 14 read with Regulations 17 and 18 of the CBLR 2018. The Tribunal upheld this penalty, agreeing with the findings that the appellant had violated multiple regulations and failed to perform their duties diligently. The penalty was deemed appropriate given the appellant's misconduct and negligence. 4. Compliance with Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR): The Tribunal examined the appellant's compliance with various CBLR provisions. The appellant was found to have violated Regulations 11(a), 11(d), 11(e), and 11(n) by not obtaining proper authorization from importers, failing to advise clients on compliance with the Customs Act, not exercising due diligence, and not verifying the identity and premises of importers. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had relied on unauthorized persons for documentation and did not interact with the actual IEC holders. The appellant's argument that the KYC verification was handled by another employee was dismissed as an afterthought. The Tribunal found that the appellant's negligence facilitated duty evasion and fraudulent imports. In conclusion, while the Tribunal set aside the revocation of the Customs Broker licence considering the harshness of the punishment, it upheld the forfeiture of the security deposit and the penalty imposed on the appellant. The appellant's gross negligence and failure to comply with the CBLR were clearly established, justifying the penalties imposed.
|
