9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 905X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt dated 05.04.2021, stated that he has imported 5 consignments in the name of M/s Soshine International; he knows Shri Mukesh Kakkar for 4-5 years; he handed over the Know Your Customer (KYC) documents of Soshine International to Shri Gautham Kumar Singh of M/s SPG Global Logistics. The story of Shri Mohinder Kumar is not acceptable for the reason that he accepts that he handed over the documents to Shri Mukesh. He did not deny knowing shri Mukesh. After about a year he lodges a complaint that someone used his company s name and Know Your Customer (KYC) for imports. We find as held by Inquiry Officer that financial dispute or any other reason could be the cause of the complaint. Moreover, when the bills of entry have been filed by the appellant, in the name of M/s Soshine International, department did not either notice or object that there was no proper authorization by the importer; no case was made out against the consignments in question regarding under valuation, misdeclaration etc. It is not the case of the department that the documents are forged or fraudulently obtained. These factors themselves would mitigate the omission on the part of the appellants in not obtaining t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r and there is no serious violation of Regulation 10 (a) of CBLR, 2018 in spirit; but no case is made out by the Revenue for revocation of license in terms of Regulation 17 of CBLR, 2018 - imposition of a token penalty would suffice, in the facts and circumstances of the case. The revocation of customs broker license of the appellant and forfeiture of security deposit set aside - penalty imposed to Rs. 5,000/- reduced - appeal allowed in part. - CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 52446 OF 2022 - FINAL ORDER NO. 50686/2023 - Dated:- 15-5-2023 - MR. DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT AND MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri P. Pathak, Advocate, Shri Mukeshwar Nath Dubey, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Jaya Kumari, authorized representative for the Department ORDER The present appeal assails the order dated 02.11.2022 passed by Commissioner of Customs(Air Port) New Delhi. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are working as Customs Broker on being duly licensed by the Department. On the basis of a complaint dated 10.03.2021 filed by one Shri Mohinder Kumar Kakkar, Proprietor of M/s Soshine International, proceedings were initiated; Appellant customs broker s lic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Regulations. He submits further that even if there is any violation on the part of the appellants the punishment should be commensurate with the offence and revocation of license forfeiture of security deposit and penalty imposed are not only harsh but also disproportionate to the infractions if any committed by the appellants. He places reliance on High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai versus Alankar Shipping Clearing P. Ltd. [2019 (367) E.L.T. 553 (Bom.)]. 5. Ms. Jaya Kumari, learned Authorized Representative appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order and relies on the judgment of Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Welcome Air Express Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of Customs (Airport Administration) [2022 (380) E.L.T. 544 (Cal.)], stating that the facts are comparable. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 7. On going through the show cause notice, it is apparent that the entire proceedings were initiated on the basis of a complaint dated 02.11.2022, filed by Shri Mohinder Kumar Kakkar, Proprietor of M/s Soshine International. The appellants claim that they have received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sdeclaration etc. It is not the case of the department that the documents are forged or fraudulently obtained. These factors themselves would mitigate the omission on the part of the appellants in not obtaining the authorization from the importer himself. We find that no loss or injury as occurred by such act. The appellant submits that they have obtained the documents through the clearing and forwarding agents. We find that, as held by the enquiry officer, authorization need not be necessarily from the importer himself; it can be through any person. CESTAT in the case of Dakor Clearing Shipping P. Ltd. (supra) held that there is no restriction on the CHA to accept the authorization of a client through the trusted intermediary. Thus we find that there were no serious consequences of violation of provisions of Regulation 10 (a) of Regulation 17 Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2018. Moreover, we find that the documents are said to have been supplied by the clearing and forwarding agency M/s SPG Global Logistics. From the records of the case, there is no whisper as to whether the clearing and forwarding agency obtained any authorization from the importer and if not so whether t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
