Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2023 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 136 - CESTAT MUMBAICustoms Broker - Levy of penalty - Breach of obligation to discharge duties - principal allegation against the appellant of not having rendered proper advice to the importer has been countered in the grounds of appeal with nothing other than mere denial and not warranting interference with the order. HELD THAT:- The claim of having been led to satisfaction about the bona fides of the import from compliance of several regulatory stipulations does not appear to be acceptable as the appellant was bound to be no less than rigid in appreciating the purpose of restricting such imports. It has been pointed out in the impugned order that the failure on the part of the ‘customs broker’ to infer infirmity in the import does not sit well with the expectations of a normal ‘customs broker’ in, at least, enlightening their customers about the few exceptions in a trade regime that is characterized by ‘open general licence (OGL)’ as a norm - there are no reason to interfere with the finding that regulation 13(d) of Customs House Agents Licencing Regulations, 2004 had been breached by the appellant. Non-compliance with the obligation of exercising due diligence in ascertaining correctness of the information imparted to client in the course of clearance of cargo has been held against the ‘customs broker’ on inference from failure to keep customers informed of the restrictions in import of ‘refrigerant gas’ of certain specifications - Though the finding on this charge by the licensing authority is bereft of detail, separate and distinct from that leading to confirmation of the first charge, we do not find that to be substantive lack as the two are mutually linked. It is, therefore, not inappropriate to conclude that the appellant had been in breach of regulation 13(e) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004. Breach of obligation to discharge duties with utmost speed and efficiency and without avoidable delay - HELD THAT:- The cavalier dismissal of the counter of the ‘customs broker’ in response to this charge, and in the absence of evidence demonstrating lack of speed and efficiency on the part of the appellant as also of any avoidable delay having occurred, cannot but lead to the conclusion of not being in agreement with the licensing authority on the finding that appellant had breached regulation 13(n) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 - this obligation, intended to ensure best interests of the customer and, obviously, to be invoked in circumstances of grievance aired by customers, appears to have been alleged to have been breached without any thought to the manner in which it would be established in enquiry. The licensing authority has not taken recourse to the extreme penalty of revocation of licence but has limited himself to forfeiture of security deposit. Thus, even if one of the charges held as breached does not sustain, the gravity of the two that are sustained does not detract from the proportionality of the penalty finally imposed. There are no mitigating circumstances either to commend further leniency. There are no reason to interfere with the order directing forfeiture of security deposit - appeal dismissed.
|