9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 was passed holding that the notice issued by the Commissioner is well within the statutory period of limitation as the event of 'issuance of notice' is mutually exclusive of the 'event of service of notice'. The requirement of Regulation 20(1) of CBLR, 2013 is that the notice by the Commissioner herein, should be issued within the period of 90 days to be followed by the event of service. However, there already was a divergent view of the coordinate Division Bench, that vide aforesaid order of 01.10.2019, the matter was referred to Larger Bench for reference about the following issues involved: (i) Whether the word whether the word 'issue' in Regulation 20(1) CBLR, 2013 should include 'serve' (ii) Whether the time limit prescribed in Regulation 20(1) CBLR 2013 is mandatory or directory in nature. The said reference stands decided vide Interim order No. 1/2021 dated 18th February, 2021 by Hon'ble President holding that word 'issue' would not include 'serve' and that the time limit prescribed in Regulation 20(1) of CBLR 2013 is mandatory in nature. 1.1 Based upon this decision, the appeal has been listed to be disposed off finally. An opportunity of hearing was given to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shyam Enterprises and M/s. Horrens Exim. It is impressed upon that had CHA /appellant would have fulfilled all his obligations of Regulation 10 of CBLR, 2018 /11 of CBLR 2013, by verifying the antecedent for four of these importers, he could have been aware of the fact that four of them have been fake. It is further submitted that there seems no reason that the appellants had no knowledge about Sanjeev Maggu himself to be Customs Broker having licence in the name of his company M/s Leo Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd. The licence of said M/s Leo Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd. has also been rejected. The appeal thereof has been dismissed vide the decision reported as [2019 (370) ELT 1750 (Tri-Del)]. 2.1 The learned Departmental Representative has also brought to our notice the deposition of the appellants in his statement as was recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 on 14 July, 1917, where the appellant has acknowledged his mistake. 2.2 In view of these submissions, learned Departmental Representative has prayed that there is no illegality in the order under challenge while revoking the license of the appellant. The appeal, therefore, has no merits and is accordingly prayed to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le energy and time. The CHA is supposed to safeguard the interests of both the importers and the Customs. A lot of trust is kept in CHA by the importers/exporters as well as by the Government Agencies. To ensure appropriate discharge of such trust, the relevant regulations are framed. Regulation 14 of the CHA Licensing Regulations lists out obligations of the CHA. Any contravention of such obligations even without intent would be sufficient to invite upon the CHA the punishment listed in the Regulations...." We approve the aforesaid observations of the CEGAT, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai and unhesitatingly hold that this misconduct has to be seriously viewed." Actually the intention for grant of licence to Customs Broker is that Customs House Agent or Customs Broker has a direct access to the port and he may assist the importer while fulfilling all obligations necessary for import or export. Therefore, the sole aim of CBLR is to secure the interest of importer/exporter and also that of Revenue. Customs House Agents are known to the clients and Department simultaneously to facilitate the importers /exporters to have all the knowledge about the concerned import /export to get all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 6.1 Again we revert to the aforesaid admission of the appellant and we observe that it was acknowledged by the CHA that four of the importer firms and the proprietors thereof are dummy proprietors. Four of these firms are actually financed by Shri Ramesh Wadhera and are being operated by one Shri Sanjeev Maggu. We also observe that there is apparent and clear admission that despite acquiring this knowledge CHA/ appellant concealed the same from the Department. In answer to question number 8 as was put to CHA while recording the said statement under section 108 of Customs Act, 1962, he specifically acknowledged that he knew about the goods which were imported under warehouse consignments by these firms were actually meant for re-export to other foreign country, but were being diverted to the domestic market, he opted to not to ask for any clarification from the importer nor to bring such illegality to the notice of the Department only for sake of the payment CHA had to receive from these importers a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Jasjeet Singh Marwaha vs. Union of India reported as [MANU/DE/1201/2009] that CHA's licence can be suspended based on confession made under Section 108 of Act, 1962 provided it is voluntary and statement is truthful and is not result of such inducement, threat or promise as mentioned in section 24 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the present case, there is no retraction by the appellant of the said statement nor it is the submission before us. We have no reason to ignore the said admission. 8. Once there is acknowledged and admitted violation of CBLR Regulations, the Revenue has the option to follow the discipline governing 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
