Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2023 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1202 - DELHI HIGH COURTRevocation of Customs Broker License - forfeiture of security deposit - levy of penalty - appellant liable for reporting an offence committed in relation to goods stored in the bonded warehouse, after the same have been imported and the professional role of the Customs Broker in clearance of the goods had ended - HELD THAT:- In the facts of this case, there is no allegation of impersonation in the name of importer firms. The finding of DRI is that these importer firms were not being run and operated by the persons in whose name the importer firms were incorporated. The allegation is not that these firms are fictitious and do not exist. The finding is that these firms are being run and remotely controlled by Mr. Sanjeev Maggu and Mr. Ramesh Wadhera. The Regulation requires the Customs Broker to verify the identity of the client (i.e., importer firms) and in the facts of this case since the clients (i.e., importer firms) exist as is evident from the functionality of the IEC (as discussed above), it is not possible to hold that there has been a blatant violation of this Regulation, which would justify the revocation of CB license. There is an attempt to embellish the allegations against the Appellant. It has been stated that the Appellant had knowledge ‘before hand’ that the importer firms were dummy firms and was aware of this fact even prior to removal of the goods from custom bonded warehouses. This Court finds that there is no such finding against the Appellant in the orders of the Commissioner or the learned Tribunal and the same is also not evident from the statement dated 14.07.2017, which is the sole document relied against the Appellant; and therefore, this submission of the Respondent is not borne out from the record. Proportionality of the punishment handed down to the Petitioner - HELD THAT:- This Court however takes note that the Appellant was unable to provide the KYC records of the importer firms to DRI and Customs authorities despite undertaking to do so in reply to question in its statement dated 14.07.2017 and thereby raising an inference of lapse in collecting the KYC documents. This fact has also been highlighted by the Respondent in the written submissions dated 11.09.2023. In the opinion of this Court in view of the judgment of KUNAL TRAVELS (CARGO) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT & GENERAL) NEW CUSTOMS HOUSE, IGI AIRPORT, NEW DELHI [2017 (3) TMI 1494 - DELHI HIGH COURT], the said inaction of the Appellant cannot justify the imposition of the maximum punishment of revocation of the license. There is no finding against the Appellant that he in any manner connived with the importer firms or abetted the said firms in their wrongful actions in diverting the goods to the domestic market without payment of customs duty, which led to the loss to the revenue. There is no finding that the Appellant earned extra commission for the assignment for clearance of imported goods from the Customs Station or has partaken in the illegitimate gains made by the importer firms. In the facts of this case, the revocation of the license came into effect on 04.02.2019 and a period of more than 4 ½ years has already lapsed. The revocation of the license which is in operation since 2019 i.e., almost 4 ½ years is itself a severe punishment and will serve as a reprimand to the Appellant to conduct its affairs with more alacrity. A penalty of revocation of license for failing to collect the KYC forms unjustly restricts the Appellant’s ability to undertake the business CHA for the entire life - keeping in view the proportionality doctrine and keeping in view that the Appellant has already been unable to work for 4½ years, this Court is therefore of the opinion that the impugned order of the learned Tribunal as well as the order-in-original dated 04.02.2019 to the extent that it revokes the Appellant’s license and forfeits the security deposit is liable to be set aside. Since the tenure of the license expired on 09.03.2019, the Appellant will be at liberty to apply for the grant of a new license and if such an application is made, the same will be considered under the extant regulations. Appeal allowed.
|