9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 786X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imported by M/s Chirag Corporation, Bhiwandi under the Duty Fee Imported Authorization Scheme (DFIA). The Bombay Customs Authorities booked a case of under invoicing of goods against the said importer. The SCN for such customs offence was issued on 01.12.2014 and upon receipt of a copy thereof, Delhi Customs initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant by issuing SCN dated 03.03.2015. The Custom Broker Licence was revoked by the Commissioner Customs vide his order dated 25.08.2015. But when the said order was challenged before this Tribunal, the matter was remanded for de novo decision after furnishing copies of relevant documents based on which the case has been made against the appellant. The present impugned order has been p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments submitted by the importer. iv) Finally, he submitted that on merit a lenient view may be taken since their Custom Broker Licence has remained revoked for a period of more than 3 years. 3. The ld DR justified the impugned order. He submitted that the question of time bar has already been considered by the Tribunal in the first round of litigation resulting in issue of Final Order darted 10.05.2017. He strongly refuted the allegation that the Commissioner Customs has manipulated the dates of the Offence Report. He produced a copy of the record for verification of the Bench in which he highlighted the fact that the Offence Report was received by the office of Commissioner (Customs), Delhi as evidenced by the seal on such correspondenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the bidding of Shri Vinod Chaudhary who did not hold any position in the importer firm, hence, we are of the view that the charge of violation of Regulation 11(a) stands established. The claim of the appellant that Shri Ashok Tiwari has acted as per the authorisation given by Shri Vinod Chaudhary merits to be discarded. b) Violation of Regulation 11(d) In terms of Regulation 11(d), CB shall advice his client to comply with the provisions of the Customs Act and in case of non-compliance, shall bring the matter to the notice of the Customs Authorities. From the record of the case, we find that the CB has not only failed to advice his client to comply with the provisions of the Customs Act, but has worked hands-in-glow with the importe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mployees. From the record, it is seen that the operation of the appellant at Bombay Customs was handled by Shri Ashok Tiwari, who was the "G."card holder as well as Power of Attorney Holder-cum-Manager of the CB firm. The investigation at Bombay has established that Shri Ashok Tiwari has abused his position in facilitating the import by M/s Chirag Corporation. The failure on the part of the CB to discharge their legal and statutory responsibilities have enabled and facilitated fraudulent import under DFIA. The appellant is to be held responsible for all the acts of omissions and commission by their employee Shri Ashok Tiwari at Bombay. In accordance with the Principle of Vicarious Liability, the principal, i.e., the appellant, is to be held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
