Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1189 - CESTAT NEW DELHIRevocation of CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - violation of Regulations 11(a), 11(b), 11(d), 11(n) & 11(j) of the Custom Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 - HELD THAT:- The required KYC were produced by the Appellant to the Department at a later stage to the Licence Issuing Authority and not to the investigating Agency. This suggests that the necessary KYC documents were actually not present with the appellant when the investigating agency visited and asked them to produce the KYC documents of the importer firm. This very facts prove that the appellant had indeed not negotiated the clearance of the impugned consignments and have allowed his licence to be misused by other persons and have thus violated the provisions of Regulation 11 (a) of CBLR, 2013. The charge of failure to advise the client to comply with Regulation 11(d) or the charge of concealment of any document etc. as per regulation 11(j) does not hold good as these charges are not substantiated by any positive evidence with respect to knowledge of the CB or circumstantial evidence like extra pecuniary gain etc. There is nothing on record to also show that appellant was too prevented from being present personally or through his authorized G Card or H Card representative when called by the investigating agency for participating in the examination of impugned import consignments, the arguments adduced by them in their support are without valid evidences and thus the appellant has violated the provisions of Regulation 11(b). The appellant has not complied with the provisions to regulations CBLR 2013 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|