9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w cause notice and its reversal on appeal of Commissioner of Customs before the first appellate authority is pending before the Tribunal on challenge of the importer. It was within this factual matrix that the outcome of proceedings initiated under Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 on the charges levelled against the appellant herein should have been decided. And that is the test to which the impugned order must be subjected. It is no less of an oddity that the finding in the impugned order that the appellant had not discharged the duties of customs broker with utmost speed and efficiency and without any delay is based upon the same alleged misconstruing adopted to allege loss of revenue. The only ground for concluding that there has been loss of revenue is the reversal of the dropping of proceedings under Customs Act, 1962 by order of first appellate authority. Such appellate revision does not obfuscate non-leviability of duty opined by the assessing and adjudicating authorities which impedes a final conclusion, as yet, on that score - There is no allegation, let alone evidence, that the appellant did not demonstrate speed and efficiency or had wantonly delayed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d obligations were incorporated as regulation 11(d), (e) and (m) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013 and regulation 10(d), (e) and (m) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulation (CBLR), 2018. We find it necessary to place this on record as the relevant breaches have been variously referred to in the impugned order. It is our earnest advice to licencing authorities that, in rendering their decision, reference should be to the Regulations as prevailing at the time of the order to avoid any possibility of confusion; needless to state, it would also demonstrate proper application of mind. It is also on record that penal proceedings under Customs Act, 1962 commenced against the appellant herein, along with the importers concerned with the transaction herein, had been dropped by the adjudicating authority but is yet pending in the Tribunal consequent upon reversal by the first appellate authority. 3. The charges against the appellant are confined to failing in obligation to advise client to comply with provisions of Customs Act, 1962 attended upon with like disregard of obligation to bring noncompliance to notice of designated customs authority, to exercise due diligence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Bombay in Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai v. Unison Clearing P Ltd [2018 (3610 ELT 321 (Bom)] even while indulging in selective culling therefrom to obfuscate the absence of justification for the delay. Clearly, there is a breach of time lines without adequate explanation thereof to which we may advert after examining the issue on merit as submitted by Learned Counsel. 6. It was pointed out also that the excessive expectation on the part of the licencing authority, even to the extent of holding in the impugned order that 6. It is clear . (iv) .. Therefore, there is no ambiguity in interpretation of Wheat Flour and Coco Powder). The said Public Notice is very specific about the ingredients that can be imported under the DFIA scheme. The CB has filed the B/E No. 6541438 dated 14.04.2012 and 7375227 dated 12.07.2012 after issuance of the Public Notice No. 93 (RE-2010)/2009-14 dated 01.02.2012. In view of the above findings, I am of the view that the CB M/s Shree Simandhar Shipping Services (CB No. 11/1024) intentionally did not bring the said Public Notice to the Notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion that rightly lies within the scope of assessment to duties of customs under Customs Act, 1962. Neither does such empowerment vest in the licencing authority and in revocation proceedings. It should suffice for our purposes that there is no allegation of misleading description, of tariff item or of incorrect declaration of value which entry under section 46 of Customs Act, 1962 is concerned with. The impugned entry has claimed the benefit of an exemption notification and it is upto the assessing authority to determine entitlement thereof. It is also on record that the assessing authority preferred to resort to provisional assessment under section 18 of Customs Act, 1962 which was finalized in accordance with the manner prescribed therein sans any proposal to disturb the claim of such benefits. There is nothing on record to indicate that the proper officer has had his hands forced or his mind beguiled to permit such availment in deviation from the procedure laid down in law. In further proceedings initiated under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 to deny the benefit of exemption and to recover differential duty, the proper officer so empowered had discarded the proposal in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontext. That certainly is not the stance that the statute requires a customs broker to adopt and, more so, when the assessing authority as well as departmental adjudicating authority too did not feel compelled to contemplate otherwise. It is not the case of the respondent-Commissioner that the appellant herein had any alternative judgement to fall back on for advising the client not to seek the benefit of exemption. In such circumstances, there is also no scope for report to the Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Customs on any non-compliance. We also do hope that the respondent-Commissioner was not anything other than facetious in positing that it was, as noted by us supra, for the customs broker to mentor customs officials through contemporary regulations. We, therefore, find no merit in the conclusion that the appellant had breached the obligation in regulation 10(d) of Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2018 in any manner whatsoever. 12. Turning to the next enumeration among the alleged breaches, viz., ascertainment of the correctness of information imparted to client, the respondent-Commissioner has held that the order of the Tribunal, and the subject of the judgement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
