9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 621X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18 for short) and also ordered for the forfeiture of security furnished by the appellant under Regulation 14 read with Regulation 17 of CBLR, 2018 and also imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2018. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are working as a Customs House Agent (CHA). Appellants were approached by one Mr.Alexander Nathan alias Alex, employee/agent of the importer M/s. M and I Company. The said Mr. Alexander handed over the necessary authorization and KYC documents of the importer to the appellant and the appellant carried out verification as required and attended customs clearance activities of the importer. The imported goods were cleared from the Customs and handed over to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2018, of not obtaining authorization from the importer is sustainable. ii. The allegation of violation of Regulation 10(d) of the CBLR, 2018 of not advising his client is sustainable. iii. The allegation of violation of Regulation 10(e) of the CBLR of not complying with due diligence is not sustainable; iv. The allegation of violation of Regulation 10(n) of the CBLR, of not verifying the IEC number, and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data/information is not sustainable. The said Inquiry Report was communicated to the appellant who filed his defence reply dt. 30/07/2019. Thereafter the Commissioner of Customs passed the impugned order vide which the Customs B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legation under Regulation 10(e) and Regulation 10(n) failed to sustain, it natural corollary that Regulation 10(a) and 10(d) are also complied with. He further submitted that the impugned order failed to bring out as to what should have been advised by the appellant to the importer but was not advised under Regulation 10(d). He further submitted that the Commissioner has merely resorted to Regulation 10(d) without pointing out as to the lapse on the part of the appellant. further the adjudicating authority in the impugned order has, on presumption and assumption, concluded that the regulations contemplated a general advice and not a specific advice. He further submitted that the appellant has been in the profession for two decades with unbl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R 10(a) and 10(d) and therefore the licence ha been rightly revoked by the Commissioner. 6.1. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, we find that out of the 4 violations alleged against the appellant, the Inquiry Officer has exonerated the appellant under Regulation 10(e) and 10(n) and has only found the appellant violating Regulations 10(a) and 10(d) which pertains to not obtaining authorization from the importer and not advising his client properly. Further we find that as far as verification of the documents are concerned, the appellant has been exonerated and we find that the appellant was approached by one Mr. Alexander Nathan who is alleged to be the employee of the importer as p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifiable even if it is to be admitted that physical verification of the importer's premises could have avoided the filing of the bill of entry by the appellant. Even in such a situation, the violation in respect of the cargo viz. the non-declaration of the RSP on the auto parts, a debatable point of interpretation, cannot be held against the appellant to result in the revocation of their licence. Here, it is to be noted that the bill of entry was filed after the detention of the goods for inquiry by the DRI Officers and request for physical verification of the cargo before assessment has been made in the form of first check bill of entry. We find that the impugned order passed on dis-agreement with the inquiry report has not brought out clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the Customs Authorities (as a matter of law, and of fact) can be said to have been violated, or be irretrievably lost for the future operation of the license. In effect, thus, the proportionality doctrine has escaped the analysis. 12.Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Customs has stressed that the infraction in this case is not a routine matter, but rather, illegal smuggling of narcotics by the G card users. However, given the factual finding that the CHA was not aware of the misuse of the G cards (and thus, also unaware of the contents being smuggled), no additional blame can be heaped upon the CHA on that count alone. Rather, the only proved infraction on record is of the issuance of G cards to non-employees, as opposed to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
