9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 254 - AT - CustomsRevocation of the Customs Broker License - forfeiture of security deposit - levy of penalty - Detention of goods - Smuggling - import of of E-waste from Dubai to JNPT - mis-declaration of goods as Electric Arc Welding Machines Bill of Entry covering import had been presented in the name of importer without actual knowledge of the proprietor of the firm - violation of the Regulations of CBLR, 2018 - HELD THAT - Though it is an admitted fact that someone had imported e-waste by mis-declaring the goods as Electric Arc Welding Machines, the Department has not made any allegation that the Customs Broker or any of their staff were aware about the mis-declaration at any point of time till it was brought to their notice during investigation and due to that reason, no show-cause notice was issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. Violation of Regulations 10(a) and (n) of CBLR, 2018 - HELD THAT - The regulation casts responsibility on the Customs Broker to obtain authorization and in the present case they have obtained the authorization and produced the same during investigation. The issue regarding revocation of Customs Broker license was considered by Principal Bench in the matter of M/S PERFECT CARGO AND LOGISTICS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIRPORT GENERAL) 2020 (12) TMI 649 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and categorically held that there is no binding on the Customs Broker to verify the address of the importer/exporter by physically visiting the premises as per the document furnished by the importer and such verification can be done by verifying the details at declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. Violation of Regulation 10(d) and (e) - HELD THAT - Though the actual goods imported by the importer is e-waste and prohibited to import, the appellant was not aware about the import of such goods till it was disclosed by the investigating agency. Thus, as a Customs Broker, appellants had no opportunity to advice the importer regarding the violation of statutory requirements for importing such goods. There is no evidence to substantiate that the appellant was aware about the mis-declaration of the goods by the importer. The issue was considered by the Hon ble High Court of New Delhi in the matter of KUNAL TRAVELS (CARGO) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT GENERAL) NEW CUSTOMS HOUSE, IGI AIRPORT, NEW DELHI 2017 (3) TMI 1494 - DELHI HIGH COURT wherein it was held that There is nothing on record to show that the appellant had knowledge that the goods mentioned in the shipping bills did not reflect the truth of the consignment sought to be exported. In the absence of such knowledge, there cannot be any mens rea attributed to the appellant or its proprietor. There is no involvement of appellant in alleged smuggling activities. The omissions alleged against the Customs Broker are not sufficient enough to allege violation of the provisions of CBLR 2018 and to revoke the Customs Broker License. Moreover, in the present case, the appellant s license has been suspended on 03.08.2020 and his livelihood has been affected for more than two years, this in itself amounts to severe punishment. Appeal allowed.
Issues involved:
Violation of Regulations of CBLR, 2018; Allegations against the Customs Broker; Revocation of Customs Broker License; Imposition of penalty; Allegations of smuggling; Due process of law; Suspension of activities; Violation of Regulation 10(a) and (n); Violation of Regulation 10(d) and (e); Limitation under Section 17 of CBLR. Violation of Regulations of CBLR, 2018: The Department did not allege that the Customs Broker or their staff were aware of mis-declaration of e-waste as Electric Arc Welding Machines until investigation. No show-cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 was issued due to lack of awareness on the part of the Customs Broker. Violation of Regulation 10(a) and (n) of CBLR, 2018: The Customs Broker obtained authorization as required by the regulation and produced the same during investigation. Precedents were cited to support the argument that verification of importer/exporter address can be done by reliable documents, data, or information, not necessarily by physical visit. Violation of Regulation 10(d) and (e) of CBLR, 2018: The Customs Broker was not aware of the import of prohibited e-waste until disclosed by the investigating agency. Lack of evidence showed that the appellant was aware of the mis-declaration by the importer. Precedent from the Hon'ble High Court of New Delhi was cited to support the argument regarding due diligence by the Customs Broker. Revocation of Customs Broker License: The Tribunal found no involvement of the appellant in smuggling activities or violation of CBLR 2018 provisions. The omissions alleged were not sufficient to revoke the license. The suspension of the appellant's license for over two years was deemed a severe punishment, leading to the appeal being allowed with consequential relief.
|
