9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k forms which were signed by him. In reply to a question No. (5) Shri Sivaraman himself accepted the usage of signed blank forms by his employer. The appellant has pointed out that they had paid compensation of ₹ 2,00,000/- by way of cheque dated 13.03.2013 to Shri V. Sivaraman. It then appears that the complaint by Shri V. Sivaraman is the resultant of a mutual understanding gone sour. While the appellant has definitely not complied with the obligation caused on him under Regulation 11 B of CBLR 2013, to transact business either personally or duly approved employee, there is no allegation that the blank bills of entry wherein the signature of the ex-employee which were improperly used, were forged by them - There is also no allega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Investigation was ordered to verify the correctness of the compliant. Based on the report from the Assistant Commissioner, SIIB, it appeared that the appellant had violated Regulation 11 (b) of Customs Broker Licence Regulations (CBLR), 2013 and hence a SCN dated 27.07.2016 was issued asking the appellant to show cause why the licence cannot be revoked, the security deposit amount forfeited and penalty imposed under Regulation 18 read with Regulation 207 of CBLR, 2013. After due process of adjudication, the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, vide the impugned order dated 10.01.2017 held that action of the appellant in using already signed documents of the F-card holder who is not their employee shows guilty, misconduct, that the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Sivaraman was an ex-employee who was relieved from the services of the company on 14.09.2012. He has admitted that he received compensation from the appellant for the period 17.09.2012 to 01.02.2013 on mutual understanding for use of the blank forms signed by him when he was in service. iv) The mistake committed by the appellant company in usage of the signed forms of an ex-employee and it cannot be called use of forged document. 3. On the other hand, on behalf of the department Ld. AR, Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, supports the impugned order and states that the action taken against the appellant under the CBLR, 2013 is fully justified and commensurate with the magnitude of the fraudulent activity committed by them. 4. Heard b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egulations 20 (1) should be considered as an offence report. In fact, in para-18 of the judgment the High Court has further held that the date of knowledge gained by the Commissioner by means of any communication, be it SCN of O-in-O, has to be taken as the date of receipt of the offence report. Viewed in this light, it would appear to reason that only an internal communication of the Customs House like a SCN or O-in-O or a report in other form can be construed as an offence report for the purposes of the said Regulation 20. 5.2 The Ld. Advocate has also contended that the procedural requirements of Regulations 20 (3) and 24 have not been followed, since the Dy./Asst. Commissioner of Customs in the course of enquiry has not taken oral ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for punitive action under Regulation 18 of the Rules. Nonetheless, it is also seen that apart from the allegation in the impugned order that the appellant has not complied with the said Regulation 11 B, none of the other grave mis-demeanours listed out in the said Regulation 18 have been alleged against the appellant. While, appellants have committed the infraction of using blank Bills of Entry signed by an ex-employee, however, it is not the case that they had forged such documents with the signature of that person. On the other hand, even the impugned order in para 10.8 thereof clearly concedes that the Customs Broker was using already signed documents of the F-card holder who was not an employee in the Customs Broker firm (em ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o allegation that the goods imported through these bills of entry were found having violated any customs laws in force. In the event, while some punitive action is warranted against the appellant, the revocation of license of the customs broker for this particular infraction, in our view, is an overkill, not commensurate with the gravity of the offence and will required to be set aside, which we hereby do. In our opinion, the penalty of ₹ 50,000/- imposed on the appellant in para-13 (c) of the impugned order would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice in this case, and which part of the order we therefore do not interfere with. Appeal is partly allowed on the above terms. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 26.10.2017) - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
