9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 927 - AT - CustomsRevocation of Customs Broker License - forfeiture of security deposit - levy of penalty - mis-use of licence to smuggle narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances - impersonation of appellant and filing of papers (offence under section 419 of IPC) - case of the Revenue is that by allowing Ashish to use its credentials, the appellant violated several provisions of the CBLR, 2018 - HELD THAT - The printouts of the emails annexed as A18 to the appeal do not support the stand of the appellant that the Shipping Bill was filed by the appellant after obtaining approval of the exporter. If that was indeed the case, there was no good reason as to why the appellant had not produced printouts of the emails before the Inquiry officer (as recorded by him). When one is faced with the possibility of the licence being revoked, it is unthinkable that one would not produce the copies of emails which would support one s case. If such emails existed, there was no reason as to why the appellant did not produce them in this appeal and instead produced some communication between emails IDs which, as per the appeal itself, are not the email IDs of either the appellant or the exporter. The appellant tried to mislead by producing irrelevant emails claiming them to be the emails regarding the Shipping Bill dated 17.5.2018 between the appellant and the exporter. Based on the evidence, that the position of the Revenue that the Shipping Bill and other papers were filed by Ashish Sharma using the credentials of the appellant is correct. This is also one of the two contradictory stands taken by the appellant - that Ashish impersonated him. However, according to this stand of the appellant, Ashish impersonated him without his consent and to so impersonate, the credentials of the appellant were not required. When login ID, password and digital signature are required to file papers as Customs Broker in the Customs EDI system, it would be impossible for Ashish or anyone else to do so unless the credentials and the digital signature are provided by the appellant. It is found based on the facts available on record, Ashish Sharma filed the Shipping Bill dated 17.5.2018, using the credentials of the appellant which would not have been possible without the appellant lending his licence to him by providing the login credentials as well as the digital signature. It is true that the appellant was not involved in attempted trafficking of the drugs. Had he been involved, action would have been taken by the police under NDPS Act. It is equally true that the goods were not in the Customs area. It is for this reason, that there is no case under the Customs Act. The only case in this appeal is that the appellant violated CBLR, 2018 and we have found that the appellant violated Regulations 1(4), 10(a), (b) and (d). The appellant attempted to prove that it itself had filed the Shipping Bill and claimed reliance on some emails which, according to the enquiry report, were not produced before the officer. In this appeal, the appellant enclosed some irrelevant emails at Annexure A18 as the correspondence between it and the exporter to support its claim that it had filed the Shipping Bill. The emails which were enclosed do not mention the Shipping Bill number and they were not from or to the email ID of the appellant or the exporter - the revocation of the licence, forfeiture of security deposit and imposition of penalty on the appellant are just and fair and proportionate to the serious nature of the violations by the appellant. The impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed except that no violation of Regulation 10 (e) of CBLR, 2018 is found.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the CESTAT was right in allowing the appeal and setting aside the Order-in-Original. 2. Whether the appellant allowed unauthorized use of its customs broker license. 3. Whether the appellant violated specific regulations under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR, 2018). 4. Whether the penalty imposed was proportionate to the violations. Summary: 1. Whether the CESTAT was right in allowing the appeal and setting aside the Order-in-Original: The High Court of Delhi remanded the case to CESTAT, noting that several aspects were not considered in the original order. The Tribunal was directed to conclude fresh proceedings within four months. 2. Whether the appellant allowed unauthorized use of its customs broker license: The appellant, a customs broker, had its license revoked by the Commissioner of Customs for allegedly allowing Ashish Sharma to misuse its credentials to file shipping bills. The appellant contended that Ashish impersonated him and committed an offense under section 419 of IPC. The Tribunal found that Ashish filed the shipping bill using the appellant's credentials, which would not have been possible without the appellant's consent. 3. Whether the appellant violated specific regulations under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR, 2018): The Tribunal examined the alleged violations of Regulations 1(4), 10(a), 10(b), 10(d), and 10(e) of CBLR, 2018: - Regulation 1(4): The appellant was found to have transferred its license to Ashish Sharma, violating this regulation. - Regulation 10(a): The appellant failed to obtain proper authorization from Ashish Sharma, violating this regulation. - Regulation 10(b): The appellant allowed Ashish Sharma to transact business using its credentials, violating this regulation. - Regulation 10(d): The appellant did not advise its client to comply with the provisions of the Act, violating this regulation. - Regulation 10(e): The Tribunal found no evidence that the appellant failed to provide correct information to its client, thus not violating this regulation. 4. Whether the penalty imposed was proportionate to the violations: The Tribunal upheld the revocation of the license, forfeiture of the security deposit, and imposition of a penalty, finding them proportionate to the serious nature of the violations. The role of a customs broker carries significant responsibility, and allowing unauthorized use of credentials undermines the integrity of the licensing system. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, except for the finding that there was no violation of Regulation 10(e) of CBLR, 2018. The impugned order was upheld.
|
