9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 962X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rawat, and the obtaining of the authorization and documentation from Shri Anil Kumar Vachhar, the beneficiary importer, which is the foundation for every finding of breach sustained against the appellant - The obligation to advice the client to comply with the provisions of Customs Act, 1962, the obligation to exercise due diligence by ascertaining the veracity of all information pertaining to client, the obligation to discharge duties as customs broker with utmost speed and efficiency and without any delay and the obligation to verify antecedents, correctness of importer exporter code, to identify his client and functioning of his client at the declared address were, according to the licencing authority, breached. Breach of Regulation no. 11(m) - HELD THAT:- The regulation does not mandate physical verification but adjures ascertainment from reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. It is found that the records do not allege that the importer-export code (IEC) had been obtained fraudulently or that the importer on record did not exist. These were claimed to have been verified from the data made available in the public domain by the Director General of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompliance with the said obligations would not have altered the allegations leveled against the importer, whether on the beneficial owner or of that on record. The licencing authority, after considering the nature and extent of contributory negligence on the part of M/s Mahavir Logistics, did find it appropriate to revoke the suspension ordered on 19th February 2018 by order dated 26th April 2018 - For not having insisted upon contact with the importer on record, revocation of licence and, that too, for first breach is, indeed, drastic - the ends of justice would be served by confirming the forfeiture of security deposit and the imposition of penalty of ₹50,000/- while setting aside the revocation of the customs broker licence. Appeal allowed in part. - C/85932/2020 - A/85705/2021 - Dated:- 11-1-2021 - DR DM MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri SK Mathur, Advocate for the appellant Shri Ramesh Kumar, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the respondent ORDER It is the contention of Learned Counsel appearing for M/s Mahavir Logistics, whose customs broker licence has been revoked besides having the entire security deposit fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... export code (IEC) is fictitious and, furthermore, that Revenue has not sustained any loss in view of the duty differential having been made good by the importer. It was also submitted by him that redetermination of declared value of ₹12,77,228/- to₹79,37,969/- involved differential duty of only₹19,41,370/- which does not justify even forfeiture of security deposit with penalty of ₹50,000/- let alone loss of livelihood by revocation of licence. 4. Learned Authorized Representative drew our attention to the impugned order in which the attempt of Shri Anil Kumar Vachhar to undervalue imported goods with intent to evade duty of ₹54,07,368/- was narrated along with the alleged role of the appellant, one among the several customs brokers at Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House, Nhava Sheva, New Custom House, Mumbai and Kolkata Custom House, who had been employed by the beneficiary importer, and pointedly referred to statements of Shri Balam Singh Rawat, the proprietor of the importer on record, of Shri Anil Kumar Vachhar, the beneficiary importer, and of Shri Dharmendra Shantilal Shah, Manager in the appellant-company in which the awareness of the customs broke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xercised on sound lines. When discretion has been used while imposing the penalty of ₹ 50,000/- on all others, the same does not appear to have been exercised properly and even handed manner. At any rate, when it came to the appellant, in the absence of any specific mallacious intent attributable to the appellant exclusively for the entire episode, imposition of greater amount of penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/-, which is double the amount of penalty imposed on the others, does not appear to be justifiable. Only on that count, we prefer to modify the Order-in-Original passed by the second respondent in C. No. VIII/10/11/2010 Cus. Adjn/176, dated 2-8-2011, by substituting the amount of penalty against the appellant also to ₹ 50,000/- as against ₹ 1,00,000/-. he justified the revocation as well as imposition of penalties as appropriate. 5. On perusal of the records, we find that, though the inquiry, prescribed under Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013, held that, while the breach of several of the obligations in regulation no. 11 had been substantiated, that failure to discharge duties with speed, as stipulated in regulation no. 11(m), was not, the lice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gulation no. 11(e) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013. Likewise, rendering advice to the client is just as inconceivable indicating the lack of scope for any breach of the obligation prescribed in regulation 11(d). It is seen from the visual evaluation of the signatures that forgery is also not in evidence. Nevertheless, the licensing authority did proceed to record a contradictory finding which, in the absence of expert opinion, is not tenable. The sole charge that remains is the alleged breach of regulation no. 11(a) for having failed to obtain authorization from the company/firm or individual by whom they, for the time, had been employed as customs broker. The appellant has not denied the lack of any communication with M/s Forus Enterprises except through Shri Anil Kumar Vachhar. We find that proceedings, under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962, for recovery of differential duty has been initiated against the beneficiary importer, Shri Anil Kumar Vachhar. It would, thus, appear that the appellant had dealt with the beneficiary importer of the imported goods but against authorization furnished by the importer on record. It is also equally clear that the appellant, while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
