9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re aware about the mis-declaration at any point of time till it was brought to their notice during investigation and due to that reason, no show-cause notice was issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. Violation of Regulations 10(a) and (n) of CBLR, 2018 - HELD THAT:- The regulation casts responsibility on the Customs Broker to obtain authorization and in the present case they have obtained the authorization and produced the same during investigation. The issue regarding revocation of Customs Broker license was considered by Principal Bench in the matter of M/S PERFECT CARGO AND LOGISTICS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIRPORT GENERAL) [ 2020 (12) TMI 649 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] and categorically held that there is no bindin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs Broker are not sufficient enough to allege violation of the provisions of CBLR 2018 and to revoke the Customs Broker License. Moreover, in the present case, the appellant s license has been suspended on 03.08.2020 and his livelihood has been affected for more than two years, this in itself amounts to severe punishment. Appeal allowed. - Customs Appeal No. 20484 of 2021 - Final Order No. 20497/2023 - Dated:- 5-6-2023 - MR. P.A. AUGUSTIAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. PULLELA NAGESWARA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Mr. Hari Radhakrishna, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. K. Vishwanath, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Appellant is a holder of Custom Broker license issued by the respondent and extende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... commenced by DRI. Further to a specific question whether the Customs Broker is issued with show-cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act 1962 alleging involvement of the Customs Broker in smuggling activities, the counsel affirmed that there is no such notice issued to the Custom Broker (CB) and as directed by the Tribunal, a memo is also produced to that effect. Learned counsel further submitted that the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Hamid Fahim Ansari Vs. Commr. of Cus. (Import), Nhava Sheva reported in 2009 (241) E.L.T. 168 (Bom.) and the Hon ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Proprietor, Carmel Exports Imports Vs. Commr. of Cus., Cochin reported in 2012 (276) E.L.T. 505 (Ker.) has held that lending of IE C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further submitted that it is not the case of the Department that the IEC holder was not found functioning in the given address. The IEC holder was very much available in the said address and has also joined the investigation. Regarding limitation under Section 17 of CBLR, it is submitted that the show-cause notice was issued to the appellant on 22.12.2020 and the Inquiry Report, though dated 20.03.2021, was only issued to the appellant vide letter dated 12.04.2021, which is after the period of 3(three) months stipulated in Regulation 17(5) of CBLR, 2018. It is submitted that the time limit prescribed for revocation of Customs Broker License, such as issue of show-cause notice, submission of inquiry Report, and issue of order are held to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dmitted fact that someone had imported e-waste by mis-declaring the goods as Electric Arc Welding Machines, the Department has not made any allegation that the Customs Broker or any of their staff were aware about the mis-declaration at any point of time till it was brought to their notice during investigation and due to that reason, no show-cause notice was issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. 6. Regarding violation of Regulations 10(a) and (n) of CBLR, 2018 the regulation casts responsibility on the Customs Broker to obtain authorization and in the present case they have obtained the authorization and produced the same during investigation. The issue regarding revocation of Customs Broker license was considered by Princi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... importer. The issue was considered by the Hon ble High Court of New Delhi in the matter of Kunal Travels (Cargo) Vs. CC (I G), IGI Airport, New Delhi reported in 2017 (354) E.L.T. 447 (Del.) wherein it was held that - Clause (e) of the aforesaid Regulation requires exercise of due diligence by the CHA regarding such information which he may give to his client with reference to any work related to clearance of cargo. Clause (l) requires that all documents submitted, such as bills of entry and shipping bills delivered etc. reflect the name of the importer/exporter and the name of the CHA prominently at the top of such documents. The aforesaid clauses do not obligate the CHA to look into such information which may be made available to it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
