9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the impugned order, the appellant filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai Zonal Unit (DRI) had received an intelligence about the smuggling of E-Waste i.e., old and used computers and laptops from Hong Kong which are transshipped through Dubai to India (Nhava Sheva port), and a live consignment of such modus operandi has been imported in the name of M/s AMP Impex in container No. TRLU 5257576 for which a transshipment permit has been issued at Nhava Sheva port, Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House (JNCH) vide No. 1826614 dated 02.11.2019. 4. From the perusal of the records of the case, it is seen that DRI had received an intelligence that old and used in computers, laptops were smuggled under the guise of declared goods namely paper rolls of Corrugation reels, which are purported to be for clearance at ICD, Pimpri, Pune. During the transshipment of goods from the gateway port-Nhava Sheva, Mumbai to destination customs port-ICD at Pimpri, Pune, by adopting a modus operandi of removing smuggled goods enroute and replacing the same with the declared goods in an illegal manner, by tampering with the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had revoked the CB license No. 11/2083, which had been issued to the appellants for acting as a Customs Broker under CBLR, besides imposition of penalty and forfeiture of entire security deposit furnished by the appellants vide the impugned order dated 07.10.2022. 6. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that on merits as well as on time limits, the impugned order does not sustain and pleaded that the same may be set aside. He also stated that appellants had submitted their retraction of statements recorded by DRI at the first opportunity before the Court of Hon'ble J.M.F.C., Uran at Uran on 14.11.2019. Thus, he stated that on the ground of not allowing cross-examination of witnesses on whose statements suspension action had been taken, does not sustain. In this regard, he relied upon the following case laws: - (a) Shasta Freight Service Pvt., Ltd. Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad - 2019 (368) ELT 41 (Telangana) (b) Basudev Garg Vs. Commissioner of Customs - 2013 (294) ELT 353 (Del) (c) Leo Cargo Services Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi - 2022 (382) ELT 30 (Del) (d) Sabin Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar, alone had handled the actual work of customs formalities in the instant case. Shri Kishor Auti, also informed DRI investigation authorities vide his voluntary statements about all the four imports of used computers, used laptops imported by M/s AMP Inpex. He also informed during investigation, the specific details about one container having No. SEGU 4081890 against Bill of Entry No. 5511942 dated 01.11.2019, which had arrived at Ludhiana ICD and awaiting customs clearance. These were subsequently seized by the Department vide seizure memo dated 30.03.2020. The details of other two consignments imported at Kolkata Port vide Bills of Entry No. 4559092 dated 19.08.2019 and No. 4836733 dated 09.09.2019 by importers having IEC No. AQJP 0635P and IEC No. FYAPS 8687G through one Shri Govind Kautkar was also informed by him during the investigation. The above details indicate that the said Shri Kishor Auti, Proprietor of appellants CB firm had provided all known details about the illegal activities of the syndicate to the DRI investigation team and this had also enabled the department to seize furthermore e-waste/goods involved in this modus operandi. 9. From the perusal of the record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roposed to revoke the license or impose penalty, which is required to be issued within 90 days from the date of receipt of intelligence/offence report from investigation authority. As the SCN was issued in this case on 31.03.2022 after having the investigation completed on 22.09.2020, obviously this requirement of CBLR has not been fulfilled in this case. There is no reasonable explanation given for the delay in initiating action under CBLR in the impugned order. Hence on this count also, the impugned order confirming the revocation of the customs broker's license on the basis of the enquiry report against the show cause notice dated 31.03.2022 is not sustainable. 12. In view of the above and on the basis of various decisions taken by the coordinate benches of the Tribunal and higher judicial forums on the adherence to time limits prescribed under CBLR, 2018, and for the opportunity to be given for cross examination of witness whose statements were relied upon for action to be taken under CBLR, we find that there is no basis for sustaining the impugned order of the learned Commissioner. 13. We also find that legal provisions governing the issue of customs brokers in contained in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iner No. TRLU 5357576 containing the imported goods which were destined to ICD, Pimpri, Pune, were cleared under an transshipment permit No. 1826614 dated 02.11.2019 from the JNCH Gateway port to final customs port/ICD at Pune. From the statement recorded by DRI from Shri Manoj Laxman Waghmare, IEC holder and proprietor of importer M/s AMP Impex during the investigation, it was stated that the invoice, packing list and the Bill of Lading were forwarded to him by one Shri Sagar Rohidas Bangar which were subsequently forwarded to Shri R.B. Indore of Customs Broker firm M/s Global Version Clearing Private Limited, who in turn approaches the ICD, Pimpri, Pune for obtaining the Transshipment Permit (TP). From the above, it is seen that there is no role of Shri Kishor Auti as proprietor of appellant's CB firm, and he had not handled the imported goods as a customs broker. Thus, in the absence of any legal basis for initiating action under CBLR, 2018 as explained in paragraphs 13 and 14 above, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not legally sustain. 17. In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any merits in the impugned order passed by the learned Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
