9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 1008 - AT - CustomsTime barred SCN - Revocation of Customs Broker License - forfeiture of security deposit - levy of penalty under Regulation 14 of the CBLR, 2018 - concealment of Red Sander wooden logs which were prohibited under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, 1975 (CITES) - violation of sub-regulations (d), (e) and (n) of Regulation 10 of CBLR, 2018 - HELD THAT - The Commissioner in the impugned order has stated that the offence report dated 23.03.2022 was received on 01.09.2022 and the notice was issued on 13.09.2022, therefore, the notice was not beyond the stipulated time as per the CBLR, 2018. However, the appellant claimed that when the license was suspended on 25.03.2022 based on the offense report, the Commissioner cannot claim that it was received only on 13.09.2022, hence, the notice is time barred. On perusal of the Know Your Customer (KYC) form, we find that the name of the authorised decision maker is shown as Shri Shaan Basha and the signature of the authorised signatory is by Shri Shaan Basha himself on behalf of Zain Trading and it is also on record that the Managing Partner Shri Benny Francis admitted to the fact that they had not verified the identity of the exporter or functioning of the exporter at the declared address nor they contacted the exporter - The Commissioner in the impugned order has also noted that the appellant had been punished number of times for violation of the CBLR Regulations and specifically found that he had filed Bills of Entry for export of Red Sander Logs knowing well it is a prohibited item. There are no reason to disagree with the Commissioner s order in revoking the license. However, taking into consideration the fact that the appellant has 23 employees working all over the branches, the revocation of the license has affected the employees of their source of livelihood; the license has been revoked on 15.12.2022 and thus for almost 18 months the livelihood of these employees has suffered - Considering these facts and the fact that the appellant cannot be disabled permanently so as to deprive him and his employees their source of livelihood; in the interest of justice, the revocation is set aside; however, forfeiture of entire amount of security deposit and imposition of penalty of Rs.50,000/- under Regulation 14 read with Regulation 18(1) of CBLR 18 is upheld. Appeal allowed in part.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the show-cause notice and whether it was barred by limitation. 2. Alleged violations of sub-regulations (d), (e), and (n) of Regulation 10 of CBLR, 2018 by the appellant. 3. Impact of revocation of the license on the livelihood of the appellant's employees. 4. Penalty imposition and forfeiture of security deposit. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Show-Cause Notice and Limitation: The appellant contended that the show-cause notice was barred by limitation as it was not issued within 90 days from the date of receipt of the offense report. The Commissioner, however, stated that the offense report dated 23.03.2022 was received on 01.09.2022 and the notice was issued on 13.09.2022, thus within the stipulated time under CBLR, 2018. The appellant argued that the license suspension on 25.03.2022 based on the offense report indicated earlier receipt. The Tribunal referred to the High Court of Karnataka’s judgment in Commissioner of Customs vs. M/s. Sri Manjunatha Cargo Pvt. Ltd., which held that the time limits in Regulation 17 of CBLR, 2018 are directory, not mandatory. Thus, the show-cause notice was deemed not time-barred. 2. Alleged Violations of Regulation 10 of CBLR, 2018: The appellant was accused of violating sub-regulations (d), (e), and (n) of Regulation 10. The appellant argued that they conducted due diligence through proper documentation and had no obligation to physically verify the client's premises, thus no violation occurred. The Tribunal examined the Know Your Customer (KYC) form and found that the appellant failed to verify the identity of the exporter, as admitted by the Managing Partner. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had a history of violations, including filing Bills of Entry for prohibited items like Red Sander Logs. 3. Impact on Livelihood of Employees: The appellant highlighted that the revocation of the license affected the livelihood of 23 employees. The Tribunal acknowledged this impact, noting that the license had been revoked for 18 months, affecting the employees' source of livelihood. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a balance between penalizing the appellant and ensuring the employees' livelihood. 4. Penalty Imposition and Forfeiture of Security Deposit: The Commissioner had revoked the license, forfeited the security deposit, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 under Regulation 14 of CBLR, 2018. The Tribunal upheld the forfeiture of the entire security deposit and the penalty, considering the appellant's repeated violations. However, in the interest of justice and considering the livelihood of the employees, the Tribunal set aside the revocation of the license. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the show-cause notice was not time-barred, upheld the findings of violations of Regulation 10, and recognized the impact on the employees' livelihood. The revocation of the license was set aside, but the forfeiture of the security deposit and the penalty of Rs. 50,000 were upheld. This decision balanced the need for regulatory compliance with the appellant's and their employees' right to livelihood.
|
