Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2024 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 782 - CESTAT MUMBAIContinued revocation of the Customs Broker (CB) license - Conspiracy - Smuggling - red sanders - illegal export of prohibited goods - failure on the part of appellants to fulfill the obligations cast under Regulations 10(a), 10(e), 10(j), 10(k) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 - HELD THAT:- There is definitely delay in adjudication and that for the export transactions occurred in November, 2015, the order of revocation of appellant’s customs broker license has been passed on 28.03.2019. Though Revenue has not explained why there was such a long delay of 3 years and months in taking action against appellants, when the information about fraudulent exports was received on 16.05.2016. Though the first order-in-original revoking immediate suspension, was passed on 10.06.2016, action against the appellants under CHALR/CBLR vide Show Cause Notice was issued on 14.05.2018. The impugned order has been passed after almost nine months from the date of issue of SCN. In this regard we find that the appellants had filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the order dated 10.06.2016, which was disposed by the Final Order of the Tribunal dated 11.01.2017. Even though no detailed reasons were recorded in detail justifying the delay in passing the impugned order by the learned Principal Commissioner, there were reasonable grounds for alleged delay. The appellants did not fulfill their obligation as a Customs Broker for exercising due diligence in terms of the various obligations given to them. The facts brought out in the DRI investigation and the findings in the impugned order, clearly demonstrate that when the documents relating to the export goods were fabricated and declared goods of ‘Fabric glue/carpets’ was substituted with prohibited ‘Red Sanders’, a clear attempt to smuggle the goods in an illegal manner in violation of the Customs Act, 1962 and Foreign Trade Policy have been orchestrated by the appellants CB. Thus, we find that revocation of CB license, imposition of penalty and forfeiture of security deposit by the learned Principal Commissioner on account of the appellants’ failure in not fulfilling of Regulations (a), (e), (j), (k) and (n) of Regulation 10 ibid CBLR, 2018 is appropriate and justifiable. There are no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai in revoking the license of the appellants and for forfeiture of security deposit, inasmuch as the violations had arisen on account of alleged nefarious activities of ‘G’ card pass holder who is a director of the appellants CB. There are no reason for interfering with the impugned order - appeal dismissed.
|