9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be the ease of insinuation, the contention of the appellant that they were unaware of the illicit use of their licence is acceptable as within the realm of the possible. It would appear that there is no let or hindrance to any person filing a bill of entry or shipping bill without the knowledge of the broker whose authority is usurped. In these circumstances, we find no merit in the acceptance of the report of the inquiry officer by the licencing authority as sufficient grounds for revocation of licence and forfeiture of security deposit. Independent inquiry was not carried out before proceeding with penalty under regulation 20 of Customs Brokers Licencing Regulations, 2013. Action was based on evidence that was seemingly sufficient fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mod S Salkar, partner in the customs broking firm, had allowed Shri Bodke to use the licence for the exports handled by him. Consequently, penalty was imposed on Shri Pramod S Salkar. 2. The proceedings under Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2013, culminated in the impugned order no. 115/2013/CAC/CC('G)/ PKA/CHA dated 27th September 2013 revoking the licence and forfeiting the security deposit. The revocation followed the prescribed procedure of inquiry by a designated inquiry officer. The charges that were framed for inquiry were: contraventions of regulation 12 by selling or otherwise transferring the licence, of regulation 13(a) in not having obtained authorization from the exporter, of regulation 13(b) in failing to transac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under section 108 of Customs Act, 1962. That provision can be invoked by a gazetted officer either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry which such officer is making under the Act. The said statements were recorded in furtherance of inquiry under Customs Act, 1962 into the attempt by M/s Mars Overseas to smuggle goods and not in proceedings under the Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2013. The conferment of status of judicial proceeding under section 193 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code to inquiry under section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 is restricted to the intent and purposes of section 108. Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2013 is a self-contained provision framed and notified under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ping bill and carried out all the activities of a customs broker in relation to the smuggled consignment. It is also indubitably clear that action under the Regulations were a follow-up of the penalty imposed under section 114 of Customs Act, 1962. In these circumstances, all charges other than that of sub-letting of the licence or allowing any other person to use the licence are mere embellishment without any scope for either evidencing or denial. For if there was unauthorized use of licence, none of the other mandates that flow from authorized use of licence are pertinent. It is admitted by the inquiry officer that no evidence other than statement of Shri Salkar and Shri Bodke has been placed on record. The relationship between the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. It is moot if the inference of misdemeanour has any solid foundation given the lack of any such action by customs authorities, who, too, should have been galvanized with the integrity of their customs broker administration system having been mocked by this misdemeanor. To the extent that appellant did not suffer any pecuniary loss, there is no justifiable reason to expect the appellant to pursue a criminal complaint. It is not by failure to act according to behavioural expectations that charge-sheets are established as proved but by evidences presented in support of the imputation of misconduct. 8. It would appear that customs authorities had, figuratively speaking, failed to keep proper guard at the gate. Having been empowered under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings commenced with imposition of penalty under Customs Act, 1962 which was carried to Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) by appellant . Our attention is drawn to order-in-appeal no. 2244 (ADJN-EXP)/2014 (JNCH)/EXP-84 dated 20th May 2014 which set aside the penalty imposed on Shri Pramod Salkar. With that, the action that prompted the proceedings leading to the impugned order stands expunged as does the cause of action. 10. Admittedly, independent inquiry was not carried out before proceeding with penalty under regulation 20 of Customs Brokers Licencing Regulations, 2013. Action was based on evidence that was seemingly sufficient for initially imposing penalty under section 114 of Customs Act, 1962 but found to be inadequate in appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
