Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 784 - AT - CustomsIssues involved: The judgment involves issues related to the revocation of a customs broker's license and forfeiture of security deposit, imposition of penalty under Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018, and charges against the appellant for violation of various regulations. Revocation of License and Imposition of Penalty: The appellant, a customs broker, faced proceedings for processing a bill of entry for the import of 'dry dates' allegedly misdeclared to evade higher duty rates. The Principal Commissioner of Customs revoked the appellant's license, forfeited the security deposit, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 under regulation 18 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018. Violation of Regulations: The appellant, initially a sole proprietorship later converted into a partnership firm, was charged with violating regulations 10(e), 10(m), 10(q), and 13 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018. The charges included failure to verify information imparted to the client, failure to verify client details like IEC and GSTIN, failure to cooperate with customs authorities, and failure to supervise employees appropriately. Failure to Verify Information: One charge against the appellant was the failure to ascertain the correctness of information imparted to the client. The enquiry report inferred this failure based on the lack of direct communication with the importer. However, the charge lacked evidence of incorrect information imparted, making the finding untenable. Failure in Responsibility to Verify Details: Another charge was the failure to verify details like the client's address and identity. Despite some verification attempts, the appellant failed to establish the client's actual operation at the declared address, leading to a breach of obligation. Failure to Cooperate with Authorities: The appellant was charged with failing to cooperate with customs authorities during investigations. The appellant's plea of movement restrictions due to the pandemic was not considered, and the charge lacked examination of the summons issued, rendering the finding not tenable. Violation of Employment Regulations: The appellant was also charged with violating regulation 13 regarding employment supervision. The appellant claimed that only 'G card' holders handled customs-related work, but the charge of improper conduct of employees was deemed invalid due to lack of evidence of any wrongdoing. Final Decision: Of the seven charges, only one charge of not verifying the client's identity and address was upheld. The judgment found the penalty imposed disproportionate to the breach found to survive, leading to the setting aside of the license revocation and forfeiture of security deposit, with the penalty limited to Rs. 50,000.
|