Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (1) TMI 576

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... one by the appellant himself. No reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld - Decided against appellant. - C/40093/2014 - FINAL ORDER No. 40876/2014 - Dated:- 2-12-2014 - SHRI P.K. DAS AND SHRI R. PERIASAMI, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri S. Shankaravadivelu, Adv., For the Respondent : Shri Parmod Kumar, JC (AR) JUDGEMENT Per: R. Periasami The appellant filed this appeal against the revocation of the licence of the Customs Broker and forfeiture of full amount of security deposit of ₹ 75,000/-, where the provision of Regulation 20 (7) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013 (previously Regulation 22 (7) of CHALR, 2004) passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Import). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a holder of Customs Broker Licence No. CHAN/R-59/2010-CHA, under the Custom House Agent Licence Regulation (CHALR), 2004, which is valid upto 29.07.2020. Shri M. Dhanraj is qualified under Regulation 8 of the CHALR, 2004 and is the sole proprietor and authorized signatory of the Customs Broker. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), officers sei .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gs. He further submits that such fraudulent act could not have been prevented even if the documents are handled by the appellants themselves. He also submits that the Commissioner of Customs (Exports) on a parallel proceedings adjudicated the show cause notice vide OIO No. 26754/14 dated 19.06.2014, confiscated the goods and imposed fine and penalties on the exporter and also imposed penalty of ₹ 3,00,000/- on them under Section 114(I) of the Customs Act, 1962. There is no loss of revenue is caused to the exchequer by the act of the appellants. There is no material available of any financial gain on the part of the appellants. He also pleaded that from the date of suspension of the CHA license till date the appellants have lost the livelihood for over two and a half years. Both the revocation of CHA license and forfeiture of the security deposit is disproportionate to the lapse on the part of the appellants, which is bonafide nature. Considering the suspension of the CHA license of the appellant and he is out of business for more than two years and also considering the adjudicating authority also imposed penalty of ₹ 3,00,000/-, and he pleaded for leniency and restorat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a) The CHA (Customs Broker) lent his license to other freight forwarders for monetary consideration and even made an agreement with one of such freight forwarders in contravention of the provisions of Regulation 12 of the CHALR, 2004 (now Regulation 10 of the CBLR, 2013). b) The CHA (Customs Broker) failed to obtain authorization from the actual exporter, as he was unaware of the actual exporter and thus violated the provisions of Regulation 13(a) of the CHALR, 2004 (now Regulation 11 (a) of the CBLR, 2013), c) The CHA (Customs Broker) did not advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, and thus, violated the provisions of Regulation 13(d) of the CHALR, 2004 (now Regulation 11(d) of the CBLR, 2013. 5. As seen from the records, we find that the impugned shipping bill was filed in the name of the appellant CHA. The exported goods were examined in the presence of the Customs officers and stuffed and sealed with one time lock and loaded on the Trailor at CFS, Thirunallar, Karaikal. The containers were taken outside the city and tampered the seal and the red sanders were substituted in the place of Ragi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in serious malpractices which ultimately resulted in loss of revenue to the Custom House to the extent of more than 80 lakhs, there is every justification in the respondents in treating the action of the applicant as detrimental to the interest of the nation and pass the final order of revoking his licence. As far as the allegations levelled against the Applicant are concerned, it has been found established that the Proprietor of the Applicant Thiru Natarajan had signed on certain blank documents such as Bs/F and S/Bs without knowing the importers/exporters and the nature of goods imported/exported in spite of being in the clearing line over thirty years. It is also admitted that Sri D. Sukumaran, Manager-cum-Power of Attorney of the Custom House Agent concerned, had actively involved in the fraudulent act in connivance with the importers and others and that as per the Power of Attorney Bond executed by Sri K. Natarajan all acts, deeds and things done by Sri D. Sukumaran were to be construed as if they were done by himself. Therefore virtually all the fraudulent activities carried out by the Power of Attorney of Thiru Natarajan were to be treated as having been carried out by Thir .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t. 32. In view of this we are inclined to hold that the interest of justice would be met if the CHA Licence then held by the said company could be restored in favour of the said company with effect from 1-10-2012. By this arrangement, the said company would be without a CHA Licence from 19-8-2008 till 30-9-2012 which would mean that the total period for which the said company would be out of business will be 4 years and 7 months. As regards the forfeiture of the security deposit, we are inclined to confirm the said order. In our view, the aforesaid arrangement would meet the ends of justice. We will also like to clarify that aforesaid arrangement is restricted to facts of this case and cannot be treated as precedent. 33. Now that we are inclined to restore the CHA licence in favour of the said company, and as the security deposit of the said company has been forfeited, if deposit of security deposit on or before 30-9-2012, the CHA Licence will get restored with effect from 1-10-2012. If the security deposit is deposited on or after 1-10-2012, the CHA Licence of the appellant shall be restored with effect from the day when such security deposit is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates