Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 246 - AT - CustomsRevocation of customs broker Licence - forfeiture of security deposit - imposition of penalty - misdeclaration of imported goods - Red Sanders were being smuggled under the guise of Natural Slate Stone - provisions of Regulation 11 and Regulation 17 (9) of CBLR, 2013 - allegation based mainly on statements of personnel of Customs Broker - HELD THAT:- It is clear that the customs broker has filed a shipping bill for the purported export of natural slate stone on behalf of M/s.Amrita Export. The same has been permitted to be stuffed into the container; after due examination by the Preventive Officer posted in the CFS, a onetime bottle seal has also been affixed. The allegations against the appellants appear to be based on the statements of personnel of the customs broker. Shri S. Muthukrishnan in charge of customs broker in his statement dt.28.8.2017 and Shri N.V.S. Prasad, General Manager of the customs broker in his statement dt. 1.9.2017 have accepted that they have never met the exporter and have not verified the KYC details and genuineness of the IEC holder and failed to notice the difference in the name of the exporter There is certain force in the argument of the appellant that the non-verification of KYC documents per se has not resulted in the committal of any grave offence because of the fact that the goods declared in the said shipping bill were correct as per declaration; the same goods were allowed to be stuffed into the container by the Preventive Officer and the container was sealed - Admittedly, the offence has taken place after stuffing of the container and sealing of the same that is beyond the involvement of the customs broker. However, the only issue on which the appellant appear to have erred and were not in a position to identify Shri Rajesh Kumar who was projecting himself as the person in charge of the exporter. Their knowledge, if any, could have helped the administration in nailing the person who has arranged for the transportation and took away the container - Understandably, the verification of KYC norms would not have stopped occurrence of the offence going by the facts of this case. However, we find that the customs broker should have exercised a due diligence in verifying KYC norms and the identity of the exporter and their persons and could have found out the difference in the name of the exporter. However, for this purpose, revocation of licence is not warranted. Revocation of licence is a serious penal action which takes away the livelihood of the customs broker and several employees depending on them. Therefore, the penal action, if any, should commensurate with the lapses occurred and the contribution of such lapses in the commission of the offence - In view of the discussions, it is found that though forfeiture of security deposit and imposition of penalty are sustainable, revocation of customs broker licence cannot be sustained. The forfeiture of security deposit of ₹ 50,000/- and imposition of penalty of ₹ 50,000/- is upheld - the revocation of licence of the customs broker is set aside - appeal allowed in part.
|