9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 780X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first order of revocation rendering the original revocation to be lacking in legality and propriety, it would be appropriate to set aside both the impugned orders and remand them to the original authority for deciding afresh after instituting a fresh enquiry, as prescribed under Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018, for ascertaining the correctness, or otherwise, of each of the articles of charge appended to the two show cause notices. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - C/87930 & 87931/2019 - A/85708-85709/2021 - Dated:- 22-2-2021 - DM MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Sanjay Singhal, Advocate for the appellant Ms Trupti Chavan, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the respondent ORDER We dispose off appeal no. C/87930/2019 and appeal no. C/87931/2019 of M/s Sharda Impex against two separate orders of the licensing authority under Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 that revoked license no. 11/1763 and, at the same time, forfeited the security deposit mandated under the regulation no. 8 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018, while imposing penalty. In the impugned orders, no. 38/CAC/CC (G)/RC/CBS (Adj) date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s yet to be adjudicated by the competent authority under Customs Act, 1962. 4. According to Learned Authorised Representative, the appellant, through its employee, had connived with the importers in misdeclaring the value and quantity of imported goods. He pointed out that a large number of bills of entry had been processed under the aegis of the license issued to the appellant and who, unmindful of its obligations under Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018, undertook tasks that demonstrated active participation for substantial compensation. Affirming that the licensing authority was well within its competence to order revocation of the license, as well as to order forfeiture of the security deposit, and to impose penalties in view of the gravity of breach of obligations established adequately by the report of the enquiry authority constituted for the purpose in accordance with the Regulations, he drew our attention to the specific findings in the impugned order. 5. Having attended to the rival submissions and having perused the records, we cannot but take notice of revocation, as well as forfeiture of deposit, having been ordered in two, chronologically distinct and se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... now Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e) 10(n) of CBLR, 2018) and for the willful/intentional violation, the licence of M/s Sharada Impex was liable for revocation under Regulation 18 of CBLR 2013 (now Regulation 14 of CBLR 2018). Therefore, action was taken and the Customs Broker Licence held by M/s Sharada Impex holder of CB Licence No.1l/1763 (PAN No.ABLPY2494C) was suspended vide Order No. 66/2018-19 dated 13.12.18. elaborated in the enquiry report by reference to communication dated 13th December 2018 of CB, NCH, Mumbai intimating that 3. CB Section, NCH, Mumbai issued SCN dated 13.12.2018 vide F. No. S/8-105/2017-18 CBS leveled following charges against the Charged CB firm M/s Sharada Impex (CB - 11/1763). 3.1. Article of Charge - I: As per Regulation 10(a) of CBLR, 2018, A Customs Broker shall obtain an authorization from each of the companies, firms or individuals by whom he is for the time being employed as a Customs Broker and produce such authorization whenever required by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be; 3.2. Article of Charge - II : As per Regulation 10(d) of CBLR 2018, A Customs Broker shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oms premises and handled the impugned import consignments only on the strength of the Customs Pass issued to him on behalf of M/s. Sharada Impex. In this regard, it appears that the CB firm has failed to sensitize their employees about the way to handle the work in the Customs premises and the CB firm should have directed their employees to handle the documents in legitimate manner and should not entertain illegal entities in the course of employment as CB. At the first place, Shri Ujjainwala, though obtained Authorizations and KYC documents on behalf of the importers, but the same was obtained only from Shri Amit Gala and Shri Ujjainwala was fully aware that these are dummy IECs, still he went on with accepting the work and filing import documents and clearance of such illegal import consignments. Further, though the proprietor of CB firm contended that all the actions has been done by Shri Ujjainwala in his personal capacity he could not relinquish his responsibilities as employer of CB firm and is responsible for the acts of his employees during the course of handling import clearance work as CB. Therefore, I find that not only Shri Ujjainwala but also his employer Shri Shivjor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
