9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verning the Customs House Agents and as such, the Commissioner of Customs is empowered to revoke the license of Customs House Agent and also to forfeit his security if such agent fails to comply with the provisions of Regulation or gets involved in the Act which would amount to mis-conduct/ offence under the Act. The concealment by the appellant about the act of commission of criminal offence as that of fraud from the Customs authorities is held to be an act as that of forfeiting the entire purpose of the licence which was given in favour of the appellant - Interference with punishment imposed would be justified only when it shocks conscience of CESTAT. No indulgence can be shown to persons indulging in acts of corruption. Punishment imposed on Respondent, by Commissioner of Customs, of revocation of their license, when viewed in light of grave and serious acts of misconduct held established, was held justified. There is no irregularity committed by the Adjudicating Authority below while revoking the license of appellant - Appeal dismissed. - Customs Appeal No. 50618 of 2019 [DB] - FINAL ORDER NO. 51174/2021 - Dated:- 26-3-2021 - MR. P V SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND MS. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been the master-mind. There is no apparent involvement of the appellant who is the Customs Broker (hereinafter referred as CHA) in the alleged diversion of goods into open market from the Customs Warehouse by the four importing firms i.e. . (i) M/s Accturists Overseas (OPC) Pvt. Ltd. (ii) M/s. Spark Exports (iii) M/s. Shree Shyam Enterprises (iv) M/s. Horrens Exim Learned Counsel impressed upon that all the duties as Customs Broker have diligently been performed by the appellant in respect of impugned imports. He had duly collected all the KYC documents. Mr. Maggu represented himself as Authorised representative of the four of the said importer firms for whom the appellant had processed the impugned documents under bonafide belief about Mr. Maggu to be true representative of the importer. Due to this CHA was in contact with Mr. Sanjeev Maggu. Otherwise also there is no evidence produced by the Department to prove alleged negligence and any other kind of fault on the part of the appellant. Hence, no violation either under Regulation 10 (b) or 10(d) or 10(e) and 10 (n) of CBLR, 2018 /11(b), 11(d) or 11(e) and 11(n) of erstwhile Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther the appellant being Customs broker has fulfilled all his obligations as required under sub-regulations 10 (b, d, e n) of CBLR 2018/ sub-regulations of Regulation 11 of CBLR, 2013 or not. These read as follows: 10. Obligations of Customs Broker.-A Customs Broker shall - (b) transact business in the Customs Station either personally or through an authorized employee duly approved 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, other allied Acts and the rules and regulations thereof, 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; (e) exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any information which he imparts to a client with reference to any work related to clearance of cargo or baggage; (n) verify correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number, Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN),identity of his client and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic document ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earance process and the time taken therein. 5. In the present case, Department has impressed upon about the sufficient admission of the appellant for not complying with the CHA obligation under CBLR as is apparent from the statement of the appellant as was recorded under section 108 of Customs Act, 1962. We have perused the said statement and observe that CHA/ appellant has admitted his awareness about the fact that Shri Sanjeev Maggu is representative of four of the importers despite he has no capacity of either being the proprietor or partner or director thereof. However, he is the only one who performs all the functions of these firms. Appellant also acknowledged about his awareness of Shri Ramesh Wadhera to be financer of these firms and that owner of the impugned importing firms on papers, are the dummy owners. The appellant in the said deposition has acknowledged that he opted to keep mum and to not to bring these facts to the notice of Customs Authorities for the sake of retaining the business he was getting from these firms. It is otherwise, clear from the statement that the appellant tendered apology for the said mistake. However, the same is mentioned to have been unin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss with these importers. This admission of appellant is sufficient for us to hold the violation of regulation 10(d) 10(e) on part of the appellant. The said violation has been pleaded as inadvertent and unintentional mistake but to our opinion this amounts to rather conspiring into commission of the offence of evasion of duty by illegally diverting goods from Customs warehouse to domestic market. 7.1 So far as due diligence on the part of CHA to be observed is concerned, it is also quite apparent that though while making statement under section 108 of Customs Act, 1962, the appellant indicated to submit the KYC record of the importing firms i.e. M/s. Accturists Overseas (OPC) Pvt. Ltd. ; M/s. Spark Exports; and M/s. Shree Shyam Enterprises; but those documents were never been provided by the appellant. With respect to M/s. Horrens Exim, the appellant has admitted that except authority letter, no other document was submitted by the said importer. This admission is also sufficient to hold that the obligation 10(f) has not been fulfilled by the CHA/ appellant. It stands absolutely and clearly admitted by the appellant himself that he has failed to verify the correctness of Import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
