2024 (1) TMI 1169 - AT - Customs

Refusal of Renewal of Customs Broker s Licence - no supporting documents have been filed - Regulation 9 of the CBLR, 2013 - HELD THAT - The appellant-firm was not having any Customs authorized signatory from 2012 onwards and hence, their Customs Broker Licence could not be operated, but the appellant, knowing fully well, had operated the Licence without the Customs authorized signatory continuously for three years i.e., 2013, 2014 and 2015 and cleared various consignments, which could be seen from their business volume details. The above observations are quite serious, having known that the other party had with him the original licence, the appellant appears to have filed a false complaint with the police alleging about the loss of the original licence, a copy of which was also filed with the Revenue authorities requesting for a duplicate of the same on the very same ground of loss/misplacement. There was also an allegation of forgery. The other crucial misconduct which is highlighted in the impugned order is that the appellant had operated the licence without the Customs Authorized Signatory for three years, which fact also shakes the bona fides of the appellant. Instead of offering plausible explanation for the said misconduct, the appellant has only questioned the authority of the Commissioner as going beyond the issue. There are no irregularity or illegality committed by the Commissioner, Regulations of the CBLR authorize the Commissioner to check if there is anything adverse against a firm or company seeking fresh licence and to grant renewal of the same if there are no instances of any complaints of misconduct. There are no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, for which reason the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Replacement of Authorized Person.
2. Issuance of Duplicate CHA License.
3. Renewal of Customs Broker's License.
4. Allegations of Suppression and Misconduct.

Summary:

Replacement of Authorized Person:
The appellant requested to replace Mr. R. Mahadevan with Mr. Bose Thomas as their authorized person to transact Custom House work, which was accepted by the Deputy Commissioner (Customs), Coimbatore on 12.04.2011. However, due to internal disputes, Mr. R. Mahadevan filed a civil suit, and the appellant later sought to replace Mr. Bose Thomas with Mr. K. Sriram, which was not accepted by the Department due to discrepancies and lack of clarification.

Issuance of Duplicate CHA License:
The appellant sought issuance of a duplicate CHA License on 27.05.2011, claiming the original was not traceable. However, it was later revealed that Mr. R. Mahadevan retained the original license, and the appellant had allegedly suppressed this fact and filed a false police complaint for the loss of the original license.

Renewal of Customs Broker's License:
The appellant's application for renewal dated 14.12.2015 was returned due to discrepancies, including the non-clarification of the status of Mr. Bose Thomas. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras directed the appellant to submit clarifications, which led to further communications and ultimately the non-renewal of the license by the Commissioner due to the appellant's misconduct and discrepancies in the application.

Allegations of Suppression and Misconduct:
The Commissioner highlighted the appellant's misconduct, including the suppression of facts regarding the original license, forgery allegations, and operating the license without a Customs authorized signatory from 2012 onwards. The appellant failed to provide reasonable explanations for these serious allegations.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no irregularity or illegality in the Commissioner's decision and dismissed the appeal on grounds of serious misconduct and discrepancies by the appellant, which justified the non-renewal of the Customs Broker's License. The appeal was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 24.01.2024.