9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dla regarding the mis-declaration and overvaluation in respect of the export consignments comprising of Readymade Garments in order to claim undue drawback, Rebate of State Levies, covered by Shipping Bill Nos. 6293292 and 6293441f both dated 25.05.2017 filed by the exporter, M/s. Haresh Fashion, Surat, the Said consignment was taken up for investigation by the officers and examination of the said consignments revealed that the shipping bills were processed through RMS without going to Export Appraising Section and it was noticed that there was overvaluation. On the directions of the Additional Commissioner, 100% examination of goods was undertaken and representative samples were drawn under Panchanama dated 07.06.2017 and the goods were seized vide Seizure Memo dated 07.06.2017 on the reasonable belief that the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 113 (i) of the Customs Act and the said goods were handed over to custodians M/s. A.V. Joshi & Co., CFS. Thereafter, investigation and searches were also conducted at the residence of the exporter. During the course of investigation, statements of various persons, including exporter and the customs broker and his employee wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... careful consideration, did not held them guilty of any of the charges of violation under Regulation 11 (a) (d) (e) (f) & (n) of CBLR, 2013 by giving sufficient and adequate reasons for such discharge. On the question of supervision, it was reported by him that customs broker lacked supervision towards the work carried out by the person employed by him who was working as a trainee with the appellant. On the basis of the said inquiry though given in favour of the appellant, the Commissioner passed the impugned order dated 31.01.2019 revoking the Customs Broker License and also forfeiting of security and imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law and the various binding judicial decisions. He further submitted that the Learned Commissioner has totally ignored the findings of the Inquiry Officer even without putting the appellant to notice the reasons for his dis-agreement with any o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... much in existence, a fact not disputed by the Kandla Customs Authorities and which the Inquiry Officer has also righty taken into account and the same had recorded in his report that the customs broker in terms of the Circular No. 9/2010 had produced all the documents as required and the appellant has not violated the CBLR. He further submitted that the Tribunal and the High Courts have consistently considered the duties/obligations of the customs broker while filing the various documents for the imported goods and export goods. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Kunal Travels (cargo) v. CC, reported in 2017 (354) ELT 447 (Del.), wherein the Hon'ble Court observed that "if the goods do not corroborate with declaration, it cannot be deemed to be mis-declaration by CHA and hence there could be no guilt, wrong, fault or penalty on the appellant and if any doubt about the issuance of the IE code is concern, it is upto the department to take appropriate action, while the IE code is the locus standi of importer/exporter and the CHA is not expected to do a background check of the importer/exporter who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Court is also of the opinion that the nature of the misconduct or omission alleged against the appellant and the final penalty imposed upon it have no oral imposition of proportionality. Even if the respondents were able to establish that there was omission or failure on the part of the appellant to comply with due diligence requirement, for some reason at least in the circumstances of this case, the revocation of the license which has almost a permanent effect, was not warranted at all." 4.3. He also relied upon the following decisions in support of his submission that the extreme penalty of revocation of license was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case: * Ashiana Cargo Services v. Commissioner of Customs reported in 2014 (302) ELT 161 (Del.) approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner v. Ashiana Cargo Services - 2015 (320) ELT A175 (SC). * Falcon Air Cargo & Travel (P) Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi reported in 2002 (141) ELT 284 (Tri. Del.). 5. On the other hand, the Learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, we find that initially a SCN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
