Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2020 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 342 - AT - CustomsRevocation of Customs Broker License - prohibition from transferring or selling his licence - smuggling - red sanders - Regulation 11 of CBLR, 2013 - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that there was an attempt to smuggle Red Sanders in the impugned consignment and that shipping bill in respect of these consignments was filed in the name of the appellant. During investigation, the appellant had no documents pertaining to the export in their possession. In fact, in the first statement given by Shri Somnath Sarkar, partner of the appellant firm, he said that he allowed Shri Sudhir Kr. Jha of M/s.U.S. Clearing Agency to handle export and import work using their licence and therefore all original documents are lying with them - In this case since the ARE-1 itself was fake as admitted by Shri Sudhir Kr. Jha. Evidently, the container was stuffed with Red Sanders and fake documents were prepared in an attempt to smuggle the contraband out. But for the intelligence and investigation by DRI, this consignment would have left the country. There are no force in the arguments of the appellant that Shri Sudhir Kr. Jha was their own employee when all facts of the case show otherwise. Evidently, the appellant has transferred his licence or sublet it to allow unlicensed Shri Sudhir Kr. Jha and his firm M/s.U.S. Clearing Agency to clear exports and imports. Not only with respect to this consignment, but the appellant also had no records of the previous consignments exported in the name of the same exporter where the shipping bills were filed indicating the appellant as the Customs Broker. The totality of these circumstances would show that the appellant has indeed sublet his licence to Shri Sudhir Kr. Jha of M/s.U.S. Clearing Agency. In terms of Regulation 11(b) of CBLR, 2013, the appellant has to transact business at the Customs station whether directly or through an approved employee. In this case neither appellant had transacted the business directly nor through their employees, but had sublet their licence to another person. Therefore Regulation 11(b) has been violated - In this case we do not find that Shri Sudhir Kr. Jha was the employee of the appellant at all. If he was an employee he should have been paid a salary by the appellant not the other way round. Recorded statements would show that Shri Jha was, in fact, paying ₹ 8,000/- per month to the appellant. Therefore, we do not think that any employee of the appellant was involved in the present case but only a person to whom the appellant had sublet his licence. For this reason we do not find any violation of Regulation 17(9). The appellant has, by subletting their licence to another person in complete violation of CBLR, 2013 has created an open channel through which any contraband can be smuggled out of India with impunity. Since export consignments, especially if the documents show that the container was sealed by the Central Excise Officer, are not checked by the Customs officers, by creating fake ARE-1s shown to have been signed by the Central Excise Officers, an open channel for smuggling has been created by the appellant by sub-letting their licence. Appeal dismissed.
|