9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 342 - AT - CustomsRevocation of Customs Broker License - prohibition from transferring or selling his licence - smuggling - red sanders - Regulation 11 of CBLR, 2013 - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that there was an attempt to smuggle Red Sanders in the impugned consignment and that shipping bill in respect of these consignments was filed in the name of the appellant. During investigation, the appellant had no documents pertaining to the export in their possession. In fact, in the first statement given by Shri Somnath Sarkar, partner of the appellant firm, he said that he allowed Shri Sudhir Kr. Jha of M/s.U.S. Clearing Agency to handle export and import work using their licence and therefore all original documents are lying with them - In this case since the ARE-1 itself was fake as admitted by Shri Sudhir Kr. Jha. Evidently, the container was stuffed with Red Sanders and fake documents were prepared in an attempt to smuggle the contraband out. But for the intelligence and investigation by DRI, this consignment would have left the country. There are no force in the arguments of the appellant that Shri Sudhir Kr. Jha was their own employee when all facts of the case show otherwise. Evidently, the appellant has transferred his licence or sublet it to allow unlicensed Shri Sudhir Kr. Jha and his firm M/s.U.S. Clearing Agency to clear exports and imports. Not only with respect to this consignment, but the appellant also had no records of the previous consignments exported in the name of the same exporter where the shipping bills were filed indicating the appellant as the Customs Broker. The totality of these circumstances would show that the appellant has indeed sublet his licence to Shri Sudhir Kr. Jha of M/s.U.S. Clearing Agency. In terms of Regulation 11(b) of CBLR, 2013, the appellant has to transact business at the Customs station whether directly or through an approved employee. In this case neither appellant had transacted the business directly nor through their employees, but had sublet their licence to another person. Therefore Regulation 11(b) has been violated - In this case we do not find that Shri Sudhir Kr. Jha was the employee of the appellant at all. If he was an employee he should have been paid a salary by the appellant not the other way round. Recorded statements would show that Shri Jha was, in fact, paying ₹ 8,000/- per month to the appellant. Therefore, we do not think that any employee of the appellant was involved in the present case but only a person to whom the appellant had sublet his licence. For this reason we do not find any violation of Regulation 17(9). The appellant has, by subletting their licence to another person in complete violation of CBLR, 2013 has created an open channel through which any contraband can be smuggled out of India with impunity. Since export consignments, especially if the documents show that the container was sealed by the Central Excise Officer, are not checked by the Customs officers, by creating fake ARE-1s shown to have been signed by the Central Excise Officers, an open channel for smuggling has been created by the appellant by sub-letting their licence. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013. 2. Sub-letting of Customs Broker's licence. 3. Responsibility for export of contraband goods. 4. Procedural compliance with Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013. Detailed Analysis: 1. Violation of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013: The appellant, a licensed Customs Broker under CBLR, 2013, was found to have violated several regulations. The specific obligations of a Customs Broker are enumerated in Regulation 11 of CBLR, 2013, which includes obtaining authorization from clients, personally transacting business or through approved employees, advising clients to comply with the Customs Act, verifying the correctness of client information, and maintaining proper records. The appellant failed to comply with these obligations, as evidenced by their lack of knowledge about the exporter and absence of relevant documents during the investigation. 2. Sub-letting of Customs Broker's licence: The appellant allowed Shri Sudhir Kr. Jha of M/s. U.S. Clearing Agency to handle export and import work using their licence. This was confirmed by statements from Shri Somnath Sarkar, partner of the appellant firm, and Shri Sudhir Kr. Jha. The appellant received ?8,000/- per month for sub-letting the licence, which is a clear violation of Regulation 10 of CBLR, 2013. The investigation revealed that the appellant had no records of the export consignment, and all relevant documents were with Shri Jha, who admitted that they were fake. 3. Responsibility for export of contraband goods: The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) discovered that a container, declared as carrying sanitary ware, actually contained Red Sanders, an endangered species of wood whose export is prohibited. The shipping bill was filed in the name of the appellant, but the appellant had no knowledge of the exporter's identity or the consignment details. The appellant's actions created an open channel for smuggling contraband goods, as evidenced by the fake ARE-1 and other documents used to facilitate the export. 4. Procedural compliance with Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013: The appellant contested the revocation order on the grounds that the proceedings exceeded the 270-day time limit specified in Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013. However, the jurisdictional Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Asian Freight & Another Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs & Another held that the time limit in Regulation 20 is directory and not mandatory. Therefore, the exceeding of the time limit did not invalidate the proceedings. Conclusion: The tribunal found no force in the appellant's arguments and upheld the revocation of the Customs Broker's licence and forfeiture of the Security Deposit. The appellant's sub-letting of the licence and failure to comply with the obligations under CBLR, 2013 were serious violations that warranted the revocation. The appeal was rejected, and the impugned order was upheld.
|
