Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2021 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 718 - AT - CustomsRevocation of Customs Broker License - Forfeiture of security deposit - levy of penalty - mis-declaration on part of the Exporter - enquiry report was submitted holding that charges were ‘Not Proved’ - disagreement memo issued, alleging that the Enquiry officer has not properly appreciated the statements and gave report based on assumptions and presumptions - violation of Regulation 10(d) of CBLR, 2018 - HELD THAT:- While the investigation conducted may or may not lead to the confirmation of the offenses by the exporter (which is any way beyond the purview of the present appeal), it would not be a conclusive evidence to establish gross negligence or misconduct on the part of the appellants. No documents whatsoever have been produced by the Adjudicating Authority or the respondents to substantiate the allegation that the appellants were in the knowledge of actual port of discharge. Under the circumstances, negligence or lack of due diligence is not established. It can also be seen that in the instant case the timeline prescribed in the Regulations have not been adhered by the enquiry officer and the adjudicating authority notwithstanding the discussion as to whether the timelines prescribed in the said regulation are mandatory or advisory. In the instant case, the alleged offence took place in 2015 and the custom broker licence was suspended in 2019 after a period of four years. Normally, a punitive action like suspension is to be taken immediately, if the same is taken after four years, the sanctity of the same is vitiated - the custom broker has already suffered a lot. The livelihood of the custom broker and the employees dependent upon is at stake. Even if one concludes only on the basis of contradictory statement of the director of exporter, that the custom broker had initial knowledge of the actual port of discharge to be different from the port of discharge declared in the shipping bills, the punishment suffered by him for two years is enough to mitigate his violation or contravention of Regulation 11D of CBLR 2013 (now Regulation 10D of 2018). This Tribunal was consistently holding though the custom broker is cast upon the responsibility, the mitigation of the same would lie in imposition of penalty and forfeiture of the security deposit and revocation of licence which is agreeably a very harsh punishment, which is not warranted in such circumstances. Therefore, the interest of justice will be met if the revocation of custom broker licence is set aside while upholding the order inasmuch as forfeiture of security deposit and imposition of penalty are concerned. Appeal allowed in part.
|