2020 (11) TMI 589 - AT - Customs

Revocation of Customs Broker licence - forfeiture of security deposit - imposition of penalty - allegation on the appellant is that their executive has broken the seal of the container without the permission of the proper officer and thereby violated various regulations of CBLR 2018 - HELD THAT - The defense of the appellant from the very beginning is that they have submitted the explanation to the Assistant Commissioner of Import, SIIB, Nhava Sheva and as per that the Customs endorsed the Bill of Entry and thereafter job order was issued by the Custodian and the seal was cut by the Seal Cutter Shri Shantaaram after informing the Examining Officer. Further we find that the enquiry officer in spite of the fact that the appellant raised this objection, did not bother to examine the Seal Cutter Shri Shantaaram who allegedly cut the seal after seeing the job order issued by the Custodian. Further, the entire operation was done in the customs area and this is normal practice which is followed to facilitate physical examination by the Customs. There is no material on record to attribute any mala fide on the part of the Customs Broker executive and there is no evidence which has come on record suggesting he acted with mala fide in order to gain any advantage - It is also found that in the investigation conducted by the SIIB Branch, nothing adverse has been recorded against the appellant. In view of the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, the impugned order revoking the licence and imposing fine and penalty on the appellant thereby depriving them of their livelihood, is not justified. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Revocation of Customs Broker licence under CBLR 2018 and imposition of penalty.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the impugned order revoking the Customs Broker licence, forfeiting the security deposit, and imposing a penalty under CBLR 2018. The appellant, a holder of the licence since 1999, faced allegations of breaking the seal of a container without proper authorization during customs clearance procedures. The Customs put the container on scan hold, leading to an open examination where the alleged violation occurred. The enquiry officer found the appellant guilty of specific regulations under CBLR 2018 based on the investigation report. The appellant contended that the impugned order lacked proper appreciation of facts and law, emphasizing that the seal was cut to facilitate examination in the customs area itself. The appellant argued that no malafide intention was present, and the punishment was disproportionate. The defense highlighted the sequence of events, interactions with customs officials, and compliance with procedures. The appellant's counsel cited relevant legal precedents to support the argument of disproportionate punishment.

The Tribunal considered both parties' submissions, reviewed the material on record, and analyzed the allegations against the appellant. The defense maintained that the seal was cut following standard procedures to enable customs examination, with no evidence of malafide intent. The Tribunal noted the failure to examine crucial witnesses like the Seal Cutter during the enquiry, which could have clarified the situation. Emphasizing that the operation took place in the customs area as a routine practice, the Tribunal found no material attributing malafide conduct to the appellant's executive. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal highlighted the severe impact of revoking a license on the livelihood of the licensee. Additionally, the Tribunal observed that the investigation by the SIIB Branch did not record any adverse findings against the appellant. Considering the evidence, circumstances, and lack of justification for the severe penalties imposed, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and disposing of the stay petition.