9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns, 2018 is a document and the manner in which it is delivered does not erase the fact of existence of such authorisation. It is not on record that such authorisation did not exist but that there was a flaw in the manner of delivery. This is not the intent of regulation 10(a) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 and the finding that the charge is held as proved is erroneous. In regulation 10(d) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, the customs broker is required to advice his client to comply with the provisions of statutes and, incase of non-compliance, bring the matter to the notice of the designated authority. Here too, the licensing authority has relied upon lack of contact with the Director of the importer company with all documents were received through a freight forwarder and, on this basis, held that the customs broker had failed to produce evidence that he had advised his client as warranted. There is no evidence on record that the client had not been advised properly by the customs broker. It is not humanly possible for any person to bring on record the nature of any advice having been given from a presumption that such advice had not been. The regulat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pose of holding the charge to be proved against the customs broker. According to the licensing authority, it was the responsibility of the customs broker to have substantive record of communication with the importer. This is tantamount to adding prescriptions which do not exist in the regulations. The upholding of the charge on such flimsy presumptions is contrary to the intent of the said regulation. Consequently, the finding that the charge is proved is erroneous. In view of the above the revocation of licence, forfeiture of security deposit and imposition of penalty have no basis and are set aside to allow the appeal. - HON BLE MR C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) And HON BLE MR AJAY SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Chirag Shetty, Advocate for the appellant Shri Krishna Azad, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the respondent ORDER PER: C J MATHEW M/s Quick Clearing Agency, holding customs broker licence [customs broker licence no. 11 145] , is before us challenging order [order in original no.67 /CAC/ PCC (G) /SJ/ CBS A dj dated 17th January 2023] of Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai that revoked the said licence under regulation 14 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n intermediary between the importer and the customs broker. Though several independent breaches could have been drawn from a common set of evidences, it does not appear to us that such application was rendered in framing the grounds of misconduct. 5. We have heard Learned Counsel for the appellant and Learned Authorised Representative. 6. The finding pertaining to the requirement that a customs broker shall obtain authorisation for each client was held as not proved by the enquiry officer. The licensing authority has held that the statements and other evidences indicate that the customs broker had not been in contact with the Director and hence held the charge to be proved. We find it odd that the requirement of obtaining auhorisation had been confused with being in contact with particular person in the company. The client is a company and, as an artificial person, operates through its authorised person. The authorisation contemplated in the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 is a document and the manner in which it is delivered does not erase the fact of existence of such authorisation. It is not on record that such authorisation did not exist but that there was a flaw in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the customs officers, would again have been brought to the notice of the customs officers is not a rational expectation. In fact, for both these provisions, the charge, had been invoked incorrectly and without ascertainment of role of charged person. These were intended to be brought into play when a client of a broker claims to have had advice given to him that is incorrect or information furnished to him was erroneous. These are not to be presumed merely because some offence under the Customs Act, 1962 has occurred. The charge of having breached regulation 10(e) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 is, therefore, not proved. Regulation 10(i) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 prescribes that a customs broker shall not attempt to influence the conduct of any official of the customs station for any matter pending before such official and the charge was framed upon the fact that goods have been subjected to full examination despite which, on subsequent examination, non-declared goods were found to conclude from the questionable presence of the custom broker during the examination that the incorrect examination report was prompted by having influenced the condu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
