TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olving the above violations in the instant case. It is true that as an individual person Shri Kishor Auti, is responsible for the omission and commission which had led to import of e-waste in violation of the Customs Act, 1962 read with relevant Rules and Regulations. We also find that separate show cause proceedings have been initiated for the role played by Shri Kishor Auti in his individual capacity in the above transactions under the Customs Act, 1962 by DRI vide show-cause notice dated 22.09.2020. In view of the factual details, under no circumstances, particularly when the appellants have not been engaged as a customs broker in the aforesaid transaction, there can be a case for taking action against violations of CBLR. Hence, the impugned order does not sustain on this very ground alone. CBEC Circular No. 46/2005-Cus. dated 24.11.2001, automated transshipment module was introduced for permitting transshipment of containerized cargo from one port to ICD/CFS, as per Section 54 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Rules framed therein. Accordingly, the shipping agents or ICD/CFS operator, who act as an authorized carrier of goods under transshipment is responsible for such goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 container seals and resealing the container with duplicate seals, smuggling of E-waste was attempted by the importer M/s AMP Impex and others involved in such act. The importation of impugned goods i.e., E-waste was in violation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 Customs, Chennai-VIII 2019 (367) ELT 200 (Mad.) (e) Indo Cargo Trading Services Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2018 (359) ELT 600 (Tri-Del) (f) On Time Logistics Vs. Commissioner of Customs, In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 records, we futher find that the appellants have not been engaged as the customs broker in the above transaction of transshipment of imported goods from JNCH to ICD, Pune. While the investigation reveals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 Section 146 of the Customs Act, 1962, which provide that no person shall carry on business as a customs broker relating to the entry or departure of a conveyance or the import or export of g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... way 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 Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai in revoking the license of the appellants, as well as in imposition of penalty against them and for forfeiture of security deposit. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
