Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2021 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 666 - AT - CustomsRevocation of Customs Broker License - forfeiture of security deposit - levy of penalty - overvaluation of the goods between 8 to 20 times of the market value in the name of an exporter - violation of Regulations 10(b), 10 (d), 10(k) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 - HELD THAT:- Under consideration was whether the suspension of the licence of the Custom House Agent was warranted or otherwise. It was not a case of final decision on the licence after inquiry. The G-Card holders of Ashiana were involved in a different business of smuggling narcotics abroad on their own account. This was not the activity of Ashiana. If any serious crime is committed by one of the employees (say, theft, assault, murder, etc.) of a Customs Broker, the Customs Broker cannot be held responsible. The vicarious liability of the Customs Broker extends only to such activities as are done by the employees as such employees. In the case on hand, the export documents were filed by Shri Kadam on behalf of the appellant and therefore, vicarious liability applies. This case does not advance the case of the appellant any further. Reliance was placed in the case of M/S. JAI AMBE LOGISTICS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL) , NCH, MUMBAI [2015 (12) TMI 313 - CESTAT MUMBAI] - In this case, we find that the appellant had no idea who the exporter was. Its employee, Shri Kadam, also had no contact with the exporter. The appellant or its employee has not conducted any due diligence measures. They claimed to have obtained KYC documents through email but have failed to produce them either before the Inquiry officer or at any stage including before us. The irresistible conclusion can only be that they have no such documents and also no idea of who the exporter was and simply filed a Shipping Bill heavily over-invoicing the goods. In this factual matrix, Jai Ambe does not advance the case of the appellant. There are no reason to interfere with the impugned order except to the extent it records that the appellant has violated Regulation 10(d) - appeal dismissed.
|