Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1372 - AT - CustomsRevocation of Customs Broker License - forfeiture of security deposit - misconduct conducted by applicant - HELD THAT:- Regulation 18(c) empowers the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner of Customs to either revoke the licence of a Customs Broker and order for forfeiture of part or whole of the security furnished by it or impose penalty not exceeding ₹ 50,000/- in case of the Customs Broker committing any “misconduct”, which in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner renders him unfit to transact any business in the Customs Station. The word “misconduct” has not been defined in either the Act or the CBLR. In the absence thereof it would have to be interpreted to mean violation or contravention of the provisions of the relevant regulations of CBLR, such as Regulations 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 17 of CBLR. Neither the show cause notice nor the Inquiry Report, on the basis whereof the impugned order has been passed, indicate as to the alleged “misconduct” which has been committed by the appellant firm for which its CB licence became liable to revocation by the Commissioner or for the Commissioner to be satisfied that the appellant had rendered itself unfit to transact any business in the Customs Station. In the absence thereof, the impugned order is contrary to Regulation 18(c) of CBLR - Further, in the show cause notice there is no allegation of any omission or commission, under either the Act or the CBLR, by the appellant as a Customs Broker. There is also no allegation that the appellant was involved with importation of any of the subject consignments involved or in any manner aided or abetted the importation of the subject consignments or in the alleged wrongful actions in the said importation by the persons concerned. There is also no material disclosed in either the Inquiry Report or the impugned order as to how and on what basis it could be held that the appellant had failed to bring the alleged serious lapses of Sadguru Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. to the Customs authorities, in the absence of there being any evidence on record to establish that the appellant firm was aware of the alleged activities of the said Sadguru Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. It is thus apparent that this finding is based on assumptions and presumptions and hence is unsustainable. This allegation of the appellant not complying with Regulation 11(d) is neither in the show cause notice nor in the Inquiry Report. The Commissioner has therefore traversed beyond the show cause notice - the allegations and findings are exclusive to the said Sajal Das and it has been concluded that Sajal Das had committed gross misconduct by participating in the acts of omission and commission stated therein. However without assigning any reason or basis in support thereof, simpliciter on the basis of the said conclusion, without any discussion or reasoning, the appellant has been held as unfit to transact any business in the Customs Station and its licence has been revoked, along with forfeiture of its entire security deposit. This is patently erroneous and impermissible. The impugned order of the Commissioner revoking the appellant’s CB licence and forfeiting its deposit with the Department is erroneous and unsustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|