9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 76 - HC - CustomsLevy of penalty on the Appellant despite holding that the Appellant had not contravened Regulations 10 (a), (d), (e), (m) and (n) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR) 2018 - Vicarious liability of appellant - HELD THAT - The CESTAT instead of stopping at this finding has proceeded by saying that even if it holds that appellant is guilty of the charges levelled against them then also the license cannot be revoked for the reasons in the circumstances of the case. The CESTAT went on to say further that it was of the opinion that the enquiry officer has more reasonably concluded in the matter but still goes on to state that appellant at the most can be held guilty of contravention of Regulation 10 (n) of the CBLR. It also says that they do not find appellant was in any way responsible for any act of misconduct but was vicariously responsible for the acts of the employees. Once the CESTAT has come to a factual finding in Paragraph No.4.12 that the findings recorded by the Commissioner in respect of the charges framed against appellant under Regulation 10 (a), 10 (d), 10 (e), 10 (m) and 10 (n) of the CBLR has no merits, the question of appellant also being vicariously held responsible would not arise. The question is answered in negative in favour of appellant.
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty by CESTAT despite finding no contravention of specific regulations. 2. Allegations against importers leading to suspension of customs broker license. 3. Inquiry, charges, and disagreement memo against the appellant. 4. CESTAT's decision to set aside certain penalties but impose a reduced penalty. 5. CESTAT's observations on the role of customs brokers and responsibility for client actions. 6. Discrepancy between findings of Principal Commissioner and inquiry officer. 7. Vicarious liability of appellant and CESTAT's conclusions. Analysis: 1. The case involved the imposition of a penalty by CESTAT on the appellant despite finding no contravention of Regulations 10 (a), (d), (e), (m), and (n) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR) 2018. The appellant questioned the imposition of the penalty, leading to the appeal before the High Court. 2. The suspension of the customs broker license was based on allegations against importers for illegal activities in their exports, such as overvaluation and misdeclaration. The appellant, as the customs broker for these exports, faced charges under various regulations of the CBLR. 3. An inquiry by the Deputy Director of Customs, charges framed against the appellant, and a disagreement memo by the Principal Commissioner were part of the process. The appellant was found guilty of certain charges, leading to the imposition of penalties, revocation of the license, and forfeiture of the security deposit. 4. CESTAT's decision set aside some penalties but imposed a reduced penalty of Rs. 25,000 instead of the original Rs. 50,000. The appellant challenged this final decision of CESTAT in the High Court. 5. CESTAT's observations highlighted the limited role of customs brokers in facilitating imports and exports. The court noted that brokers cannot be held responsible for advising clients on fraudulent activities and that such matters fall under the purview of tax authorities for investigation. 6. Discrepancies were noted between the findings of the Principal Commissioner and the inquiry officer. CESTAT found more merit in the inquiry officer's findings and questioned the basis of the charges framed against the appellant under various regulations of the CBLR. 7. The issue of vicarious liability of the appellant was raised, with CESTAT suggesting that the appellant could be held responsible for the acts of employees but not for personal misconduct. The High Court, however, emphasized that since the findings against the appellant had no merits, vicarious liability would not apply. In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that once the CESTAT found no merits in the charges framed against the appellant, the question of vicarious liability did not arise. The appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellant.
|
