Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2020 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 145 - AT - CustomsRevocation of Customs Broker License - forfeiture on security deposit - imposition of penalty - failure to obtain authorisation from the exporters - HELD THAT:- The impugned order relies on the fact that there is no post/ courier received or evidence of receipt of such authorisation. The impugned order also relies on the fact that date of all authorizations is nearly the same. The impugned order also relied on the fact that exporters were not found and Shri Manoj Kannar is also not traceable. The appellant had produced authorisation during enquiry and Shri Sagar Thakkar, authorised person of the appellant in his reply during the statement stated that they had obtained authorisation. While the facts mentioned in the impugned order may be sufficient to raise suspicion about receipt or genuineness of the authorisation but it is not sufficient to hold that no authorization was received - we are unable to hold the charge made under Regulation 10(a) of the CBLR. Allegation made under Regulation 10(d) of CBLR, 2018 - HELD THAT:- The Adjudicating Authority has not countered the arguments given by the appellant. There is no evidence cited by the Adjudicating Authority to establish that the appellant had any pre-knowledge of the nature of cargo. The statement on which the Adjudicating Authority has relied on, has not been provided to the appellant. In view of the fact that statement has not been provided, the impugned order cannot be upheld as the charge has been confirmed on the basis of said statement - the allegation made under Regulation 10(d) of CBLR, 2018 are set-aside and the issue is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision. CBEC Circular 9/2010 also specifies that KYC is to be done on the basis of documents and not by physical visit of the client‘s premises. The impugned order holds that customs broker never tried to contact the exporters. We do not find merit in the argument that there is no such requirement under Regulation 10(n) of CBLR 2018 which requires customs broker to directly contact and in touch with the exporters. Accordingly, we are unable to uphold the invocation of Regulation 10(n) and the same are dropped. Limitation prescribed under Regulation 17 of CBLR, 2018 - HELD THAT:- A perusal of Regulation 17 clearly shows that the period of limitation starts when the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs receives the offense report. In the instant case, the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Kandla initiated the proceedings and report received by him on 26.03.2019. This fact has not been challenged by the appellant. In view of above, we find there is no delay in initiation of proceedings. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
|