Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 529 - CESTAT NEW DELHIRevocation of CB / CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - mis-declaration of imported goods - alleged violation of Regulation No. 11(a), (d), (e), (f) and (l) of CBLR, 2013 - HELD THAT:- There is no independent appreciation of the facts, neither appreciation of the conduct of the appellant CB over the last several years. The impugned order is more or less repetition of the show cause notice. The learned Commissioner failed to appreciate that in the facts and circumstances, the appellant have no role in obtaining IEC of M/s Apollo Enterprises or misdeclaration of the goods. The appellant was under bonafide belief that the importer is genuine and goods were declared as per the import documents. Hence, the revocation of the CB licence without any serious fault on their part, is not warranted and wrong - Further, it is evident from the statement recorded of Shri Samir Shah, Shri Ashok Purohit and Shri Shantaram Kajrekar that the appellant was not aware about the illicit procurement and use of the IEC of M/s Apollo Enterprises by Shri Ashok Purohit. Thus, the impugned order holding violation of provisions of Regulation 11(a), 11(d), 11(e), 11(f) and 11(n) of CBLR, 2013 is perverse and none of these provisions are attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no allegation of filing the bill of entry, knowingly the same to be misdeclared. There is no case of connivance of the appellant CHA with the actual importer of the goods namely Shri Ashok Purohit. There is no allegation by the Revenue that the appellant CHA received any extra remuneration, than the normal remuneration for filing the bill of entry under dispute. The appellant CB /CHA have erred in not receiving the KYC documents directly from the hands of the IEC holder - Shri Shantaram Kajrekar. Further, as the documents were received through Shri Samir Shah relative of partner, there was an element of trust. Thus, there is some element of inadvertance on the part of the appellant-CHA. There is no case of malafidely filing the bill of entry under collusion and /or connivance, with the said Shri Ashok Purohit or Shri Samir Shah. In this view of the matter, the punishment of revocation is too harsh and disproportionate. Accordingly, this appeal in part and the order of revocation is set aside - So far as the forfeiture of security deposit is concerned, the same is reduced to ₹ 1,00,000/- - appeal llowed inpart.
|