9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause Notice dated 15.5.2017 was issued to the appellant alleging the above violations and proposing to revoke the license and also for imposing penalty. Inquiry as per the provisions of CBLR 2013 was conducted and report dated 7.8.2017 was submitted by the inquiry officer to the department. A copy of the same was issued to the appellant. After adjudication, the adjudicating authority dropped charges under Regulation 11(d) but however, held that appellant has violated Regulation 11(a) as well as 11(n) of CBLR, 2013 for which the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed. 2.1 The learned counsel Shri N. Viswanathan appeared for the appellant. He adverted to the relevant provisions of Regulation 11(a), 11(d) and 11(n) and Regulation 18 of the CBLR, 2013 which are as under:- "As per Regulation 11(a) Obtain an authorisation from each of the companies, firms or individuals by whom he is for the time being employed as a Customs Broker and produce such authorisation whenever required by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be; As per Regulation 11(d) Advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act and in case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght to not to have held that appellant guilty of violation of this Regulation for the mere reason that the authorization / KYC documents was obtained from middleman instead of importer directly. It is not always practical to obtain the KYC documents from the importer directly. He relied upon the decision in the case of K.S. Sawant & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai - 2012(284) ELT 363 (Tri. Mumbai) to argue that when the documents have been signed by the importer, it would amount to authorizing the Customs Broker for doing the necessary activities for filing the bill of entry. That it is not required to obtain it directly from the importer. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Kunal Travels (Cargo) Vs. CC (I&G), IGI Airport, New Delhi - 2017 (354) ELT 447 (Del.). The decision in the case of KVS Cargo Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General), NCH, New Delhi - 2019 (365) ELT 392 (Del.) was also relied. 4. In regard to the allegations of violation under Regulation 11(n), he adverted to para 14 of the impugned order and submitted that the adjudicating authority has held that the appellant has violated Regulation 11(n) only on the ground that the person r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rajaram appeared for the department. He adverted to the Show Cause Notice dated 15.5.2017 and argued that the consignment for which the bill of entry was filed by the appellant contained undeclared goods. On investigation it revealed that appellant has obtained KYC documents from one Shri Ramadhurai of M/s. Kesavaan Logistics. The said person has given statement that he did not know M/s. J.J. Enterprises and that Shri Karthi on behalf of M/s. J.J. Enterprises contacted him for clearance of two bills of entry earlier and then he mediated between Shri Karthi and the appellant for which he was paid Rs. 1,000/-. That for the particular bill of entry dated 27.12.2016, Shri Karthi has directly approached the appellant and that the whereabouts of Karthi is not known to him. It is pointed out by learned AR that though the appellant contends that the KYC documents were obtained from Ramadhurai, the said person has denied any part of the transaction and has stated that the appellant has directly dealt with Shri Karthi. Since the consignment contained undeclared cargo, it is very much clear that the appellant has not been sufficiently diligent in obtaining authorization / KYC documents. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investigation. When the proper address of the importer-firm as well as the details given while issuing the IE Code is available with the department, merely because the person (Balaji) who purportedly is representing the firm did not appear before the customs authorities, the appellant cannot be held to have violated Regulation 11(n) of CBLR, 2013. 11. This apart, it is also necessary to say that the report of the Inquiry Officer dated 7.8.2017 has concluded stating that all the regulations 11(a), 11(d) and 11(n) were not violated by the appellant. This being so, I cannot find how the adjudicating authority has relied upon extraneous circumstances to conclude that the appellant has violated 11(a) and 11(n) of CBLR, 2013. 12. Regulation 20 of the CBLR, 2013 reads as under:- "20. Procedure for revoking licence or imposing penalty. - (1) The Commissioner of Customs shall issue a notice in writing to the Customs Broker within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of an offence report, stating the grounds on which it is proposed to revoke the licence or impose penalty requiring the said Customs Broker to submit within thirty days to the Deputy C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , if any, made by the Customs Broker, pass such orders as he deems fit either revoking the suspension of the license or revoking the licence of the Customs Broker or imposing penalty not exceeding the amount mentioned in regulation 22 within ninety days from the date of submission of the report by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, under sub-regulation (5) Provided that no order for revoking the license shall be passed unless an opportunity is given to the Customs Broker to be heard in person by the Commissioner of Customs." 13. These Regulations are in the nature of disciplinary rules for a Customs Broker. Revocation of license is a major punishment which affects the livelihood of not only the Customs Broker but also those persons who are employed under him. The punishment being of such major nature, Regulation provides for the conduct of inquiry before adjudication of the Show Cause Notice issued to the Customs Broker. The inquiry proceedings is a measure to be cautious and to give sufficient opportunity to the person whose conduct is the subject matter of the Show Cause Notice. The purpose of such inquiry is to help the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
