Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2023 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 115 - HC - CustomsMaintainability appeal before High Court - Substantial Question of Law - Imposition of penalty u/s 114AA of Customs Broker / CHA - Requirement to follow timeline of Regulation 16 and 17 of Customs Broker License Regulations (CBLR), 2018 while revoking the license - Whether once the order suspending the license of CHA/appellant was revoked, the proceedings of revocation of license under Regulation 17 of CBLR, 2018 could not be initiated? - violation of Regulation 10(a), 10(d) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 - HELD THAT:- A careful perusal of the Section 130 of Customs Act, would show that an appeal lies to the High Court only when the impugned decision/order involves a substantial “question of law”. Suffice it to state that this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence brought on the record in the proceedings conducted before the Adjudicating Authority as well the CESTAT and re-appreciate the same so as to came to a different finding unless the appreciation of evidence is perverse or manifestly erroneous and/or is contrary to the law. The learned CESTAT conducted a meticulous exercise to examine and appreciate the evidence on the record and came to a categorical finding that the respondent/CHA was not guilty of non-performance of any of the statutory duties cast upon it. It is evidently brought out that there was a private arrangement between the two importers for which the respondent/CHA facilitated customs clearance in the name of companies, having valid IECs for the goods imported by the owners of the companies involved; and that the respondent/CHA had been duly authorized in this regard by Mr. Sidharth Sharma - There was proper verification on the part of the respondent/CHA with regard to genuineness of the IEC as also GSTIN [Goods and Services Tax Identification Number] and mere allegations that some other person was importing goods in the name of the importers, whose names were mentioned in the Bills of Entry, did not render the identity of the importer doubtful especially when there was apparently an arrangement with mutual consent of the importer and the beneficial owner and in the said circumstances there was no basis for the Adjudicating Authorities to pass the impugned order thereby suspending the license of the CHA based on the statements of the importers, which were otherwise also retracted. The learned CESTAT neither committed any patent illegality nor any manifest error in appreciating the evidence on the record. The instant appeal fails to raise any question of law. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed in limine.
|