9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow Cause Notice was issued in the main case of attempted illegal export. In the Show Cause Notice the appellant was also a co-noticee and penalties were proposed to be imposed. This is the point at which there was sufficient material to proceed against the Customs Broker and within a week the license of the Customs Broker was suspended and the suspension was confirmed within another eight days. Therefore, there is absolutely no delay in the matter. It is true that suspension is required only in cases where the Commissioner feels the need for immediate action. But this assessment of need for immediate action should be based on prima facie view about the role played by the Customs Broker. Had the Commissioner suspended the license of the Customs Broker as soon as the alleged illegal export was suspected, such an action would not have been sustainable because the appellant was not the exporter but had only facilitated filing of export documents. There are no infirmity in the impugned order confirming suspension of the license or violation of the provisions of Regulation 16 of the CBLR, 2018 - this is merely an order of suspension of license and the appellant has full opportunity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at prohibited goods namely fabric for mask was being exported to China in the consignment, mis-declaring it as packing material and passed this information to the Additional Commissioner of Customs (SIIB), Air Cargo Complex Export, New Customs House, New Delhi, who investigated the matter and on examination of the goods attempted to have been exported, were indeed found to be material for masks the export of which was prohibited by DGFT. Samples were taken and sent for examination to the Central Revenue Control Laboratories vide Test Memo No. 1/2020-21 dated 21.5.2020, who confirmed vide their report dated 26.5.2020 that the material was indeed non-woven fabric of polyester. Export of these goods was prohibited by the DGFT in terms of Notification No. 52 (2015-20) dated 19.3.2020. 5. Further investigations also showed that M/s Ala Foodstuff Pvt. Ltd., Punjab in whose name the shipping bill was filed by the appellant had nothing to do with the consignment and was not even aware of the shipping bill being filed. The appellant had received documents for the shipment from one Shri Pushpraj Yadav of M/s POL Enterprises, who confirmed having given those documents to the appellant afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f hearing to the Customs Broker whose license is suspended and may pass such order as he deems fit either revoking the suspension or continuing it, as the case may be, within fifteen days from the date of hearing granted to the Customs Broker: Provided that in case the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, passes an order for continuing the suspension, further procedure thereafter shall be as provided in regulation 17. (emphasis supplied) (b) There was inordinate delay in issue of the suspension order. An intimation by the Additional Commissioner, SIIB was first made on 24.7.2020, whereas suspension order was issued only on 7.1.2021 and confirmed on 15.1.2021 after a gap of five months and thirteen days. The provision for suspension of license empowers the Commissioner of Customs to suspend license in appropriate cases where immediate action is necessary. Evidently, no immediate action was necessary because action was taken after a gap for nearly six months; (c) All shipments of the Customs Broker were put up on alert after May 2020, but nothing untoward was found till January 2021 and their license was suspended, relies on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d suspended the appellant s license. Information is received in various forms on various issues on a daily basis by the Customs officers each of which does not necessarily result in discovery of commission of an offence. Therefore, it is important that the matter be investigated first. In this case the SIIB has precisely done that and after investigation and getting the test report and ascertaining that the goods attempted to be exported was raw material for manufacture of masks, export of which was prohibited by the DGFT, the Additional Commissioner, SIIB has issued a Show Cause Notice to various persons including the appellant proposing to impose penalty under Section 114 and 114 AA. The Show Cause Notice was issued on 22.12.2020 and within 7 days of issue of this notice, the Customs Broker License of the appellant was suspended by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport General). The order of suspension was promptly issued and thereafter the suspension was confirmed by the impugned order within another 8 days. Therefore, there is no force whatsoever in the arguments of the learned Counsel that there was inordinate delay. The appellant had failed to comply with Regulation 10(a), 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ress or the offer of any special inducement or promise of advantage or by the bestowing of any gift or favour or other thing of value; (j) not refuse access to, conceal, remove or destroy the whole or any part of any book, paper or other record, relating to his transactions as a Customs Broker which is sought or may be sought by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be; (k) maintain up to date records such as bill of entry, shipping bill, transhipment application, etc., all correspondence, other papers relating to his business as Customs Broker and accounts including financial transactions in an orderly and itemised manner as may be specified by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs or the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be; (l) immediately report the loss of license granted to him to the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be; (m) discharge his duties as a Customs Broker with utmost speed and efficiency and without any delay; (n) verify correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number, Goods and Servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is the case of the Revenue that even before suspending the license, the Customs Officers have to investigate the alleged offence and the role, if any, played by the Customs Broker. After completion of the investigation, a Show Cause Notice was issued in the main case of attempted illegal export. In the Show Cause Notice the appellant was also a co-noticee and penalties were proposed to be imposed. This is the point at which there was sufficient material to proceed against the Customs Broker and within a week the license of the Customs Broker was suspended and the suspension was confirmed within another eight days. Therefore, there is absolutely no delay in the matter. 14. It is true that suspension is required only in cases where the Commissioner feels the need for immediate action. But this assessment of need for immediate action should be based on prima facie view about the role played by the Customs Broker. Had the Commissioner suspended the license of the Customs Broker as soon as the alleged illegal export was suspected, such an action would not have been sustainable because the appellant was not the exporter but had only facilitated filing of export documents. It needs t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Freight Logistics was further directed to surrender the original Customs Broker License and all the F/G/H cards issued to them immediately. The impugned order only confirmed it under Regulation 16(2). We find no force in the argument of the appellant. 16. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the impugned order confirming suspension of the license or violation of the provisions of Regulation 16 of the CBLR, 2018. We also note that this is merely an order of suspension of license and the appellant has full opportunity to explain his case and put forth his defence in the proceedings for action under Regulation 14 of CBLR, 2018 which are already in process. In view of the above, we find that the impugned order confirming the suspension of the license of the appellant is fair and reasonable and needs no inference. We make it clear that we are not passing any remarks on the merits of the case which may be considered during the proceedings under Regulation 14 before the Commissioner and no inference should be drawn from this order on the merits of the case in the proceedings under Regulation 14. 17. The appeal is dismissed and the impugned order is upheld. (Pronounced in Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
