9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ker Licence of the appellant has been revoked under Regulation 14 read with Regulation 17 of Customs Broker Licence Regulations ( herein after referred as CBLR, 2018). Penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was also imposed upon the appellant under Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2018. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a Customs Broker (herein after referred as CB) undertook the job of clearance of two export consignments of Cow Leather Wallet of M/s. Sameera Overseas under Shipping Bill Nos. 3077182 and 3077184 both dated 02.06.2014 through the Air Cargo Complex, Kolkata. An investigation undertook by the SIB wing of Air Cargo Complex, found that the goods meant for export were overvalued and accordingly, a SCN dated 26.06.2019 was issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etion of inquiry, the Ld. Inquiry Officer issued Inquiry Report dated 06.04.2022 and held that the appellant CB had violated Regulation 10(a), 10(b), 10(d) & 10(n) of CBLR, 2018. On the basis of the said Inquiry Report dated 06.04.2022, the Respondent herein has passed the impugned Order dated 12.10.2022 revoking the CB License. The CB has filed this appeal against the revocation of Licence vide the impugned order. 3. The appellant CB submits that the attempt to export was made by the exporter under Shipping Bills dated 02.06.2014 and the investigation conducted by SIB wing of Air Cargo Complex, Kolkata found that the alleged mis-declaration of value in the said consignments was done by the exporter. Accordingly, on adjudication of the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Shri Pradip Bhattacharyya, Regional Manager of M/s. Aargus Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. i.e. the Clearing & Forwarding Agent, who again during investigation admitted that he provided the same documents to Shri Chandan Chatterjee, partner of the appellant CB. As such, issuance of Authorization and supply of the export documents by the exporter is not in dispute and hence, there cannot be any violation of Regulation 10(a) of CBLR, 2018. 3.3. The Ld. Inquiry Officer held that there was violation of Regulation 10(b) of CBLR, 2018 on the part of the appellant as the job was undertaken by Shri Aniruddha Mukherjee who had no valid licence. In this regard, the appellant submits that from the findings of the Ld. Inquiry Officer, it would be evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... himself. The value of the goods cannot be expected to be determined by the CB at any circumstance. The exporter duly joined the investigation and never complained that the CB had failed to advise him in compliance of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. As such, there cannot be any violation of Regulation 10(d) of CBLR, 2018 on the part of the appellant CB in the present case. 3.5. The Ld. Inquiry Officer held that there was violation of Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 on the part of CB as there is no evidence that the CB verified existence of the exporter over phone and got the authorization for filling of Shipping Bills over phone or mail. It is submitted that under Regulation 10(n), CB is obliged to verify correctness of IEC, GSTIN, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the appellant CB under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, on adjudication, the Ld. Additional Commissioner dropped the proposal for imposition of penalty upon the appellant CB, vide Order in Original dated 26.07.2021. The observation of Ld. Additional commissioner in para 6.3 of the Order in Original that the CB has violated Regulation 10(a), 10(b), 10(d) & 10(n) of CBLR, 2018, is beyond the scope of the SCN. We observe that the Ld. Adjudicating authority has made these observations against the CB without adducing any evidence to substantiate the allegation and without giving any opportunity to the appellant CB to counter these allegations. 7. We observe that the impugned order has held that the CB has violated Regulation 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulation 10(b) of CBLR, 2018. 7.3. As per Regulation 10(d) of CBLR, 2018, the CB is obliged to advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. In the present case, there is nothing on-record to suggest that the alleged mis-declaration in the value of the goods meant for export by the exporter, was within the knowledge of the CB. We observe that the CB works as a mere facilitator and files such documents, as provided by the exporter, before the Customs Authority who are supposed to examine the same before completion of assessment. In this case, the exporter, during investigation, admitted the fact of providing export documents by himself. The value of the goods cannot be expected be determined by the CB at any circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
