Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2020 (6) TMI 315

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lations, 2018 (CBLR, 2018 for short) and also forfeited the security deposit and imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a Customs Broker from the year 2000 and operating under Form C procedure vide Regulation 7(2) of CBLR in the jurisdiction of Mumbai Customs Zone. Appellant filed 4 shipping bills bearing No.1086000, 1085020, 1086031 and 1086034 all dated 16/09/2016 with the Customs Departments of Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai on behalf of the client, M/s. Sepehr Digital Studios Pvt. Ltd. declaring the goods as "EZZ Dental Implants Surface Treated Implant Screw" and its total value declared was Rs. 1,71,33,360/- and the total drawback was Rs. 3,25,534/-. The said goo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... are not proved against the appellant and only the last allegation has been proved. By considering the Inquiry Report, Commissioner of Customs passed the impugned order revoking the licence of the appellant. 3. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 4.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly considering the evidences on record and the detailed report submitted by the inquiry officer after conducting the inquiry. He further submitted that the Inquiry Officer appointed by the Commissioner, after considering the evidence, dropped th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Ltd. Vs. CC, New Delhi [2016(338) ELT 725 (Tri. Del.)] wherein the Tribunal has held as under:- 7. We find that the main focus of allegation against the appellant which resulted in the revocation of licence is their failure to verify the presence of the importers in the given address. We have perused the provisions of Regulation 11 as well as the Board's Circular dated 8-4-2010. It is an admitted fact that the partnership firm involved in the import of the auto parts is an existing concern, duly registered having a deed for partnership and two existing partners. The IEC copy, PAN Card, telephone bill of the firm, Voter ID of the partners, copy of the partnership deed have been seen and verified by the appellant. The allegation that the IE .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llegations of violation of Regulations 11(a), 11(d), 11(e) and 11(n) of CBLR 2013. It is pertinent to reproduce the relevant regulations which are reproduced herein below:- 11. Obligations of Customs Broker. - A Customs Broker shall - (a) obtain an authorisation from each of the companies, firms or individuals by whom he is for the time being employed as a Customs Broker and produce such authorisation whenever required by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be; (d) advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act and in case of non-compliance, shall bring the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e existence of the exporter at the declared address by reliable independent and authentic document/data or information. To counter this allegation, the appellant submitted the proof of current address of the appellant certified by the bank regarding the address proof along with all other document and the address of the appellant on DGFT website. The appellant of course did not physically verify the business premises of the exporters and as per the decision in the case of HIM Logistics Pvt. Ltd. cited supra, the Tribunal has held that there is no legal requirement to physically verify the business premises by the CHA. Further we find that this decision of the Tribunal has been upheld by the High Court of Delhi cited supra wherein the Hon'ble .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates