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 185 - AT - CustomsRevocation of Customs Broker license - forfeiture of security deposit - imposition of penalty - allegation that the appellant had colluded with the exporters to over value the goods for obtaining excess duty drawback - non-fulfilment of requirement of Regulations 11(b), 11(d), 11(e) and 11(n) of CBLR 2013 - HELD THAT:- In the impugned order, the Commissioner has held that the appellant has not directly interacted with the IEC holders and is guilty of violation of Regulation 17(d) of CBLR 2013. This finding is factually incorrect because in the statements of Mr. Mohammad Yusuf Siddique, G Card holder and Power of Attorney of the appellant at Mumbai, he has stated in his statement dt. 25/05/2017 that he had interacted with the IEC holders. As per the Commissioner, the appellant has not brought to the knowledge of the Department that IEC holders have lent their IECs to other persons. There is no evidence on record brought by the Department to show that the appellant had knowledge regarding the lending of IEC. Further, the lending of IEC is not an offence under the Customs Act, 1962. Non-verification of antecedents of IEC holders - HELD THAT:- As per Regulation, the Customs Broker is to verify the correctness of IEC number, identity of client and functioning of them at the declared address using reliable, independent, authentic documents data or information. Further physical inspection of the premises of the importer or exporter is not required under the law as well as under the Board’s Circular No.9/2010-Cus dt. 08/04/2010. In the present case, the appellant had obtained copies of PAN card, Aadhaar Card, GST registration certificate, IEC certificate from all the three exporters concerned. Time limit prescribed under Regulation 17(7) of CBLR - HELD THAT:- The Inquiry Report is dated 15/07/2019 and if we accept that the said report was submitted on the same date, even then, as per Registration 17(7) of CBLR 2018, the Commissioner is supposed to pass the order within 90 days but the Commissioner in this case has passed the order on 20/09/2019 which is beyond the time limit prescribed under Regulation 17(7) of the CBLR 2018 - the time limit prescribed under CBLR is mandatory and not directory. The impugned order is set aside on merits as well as on limitation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|