Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2024 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 80 - AT - CustomsRevocation of Customs Broker License - forfeiture of security deposit - imposition of penalty - export of textile articles - overvaluation and misdeclaration with intent to claim drawback under section 75 of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- From the records, it appears that the offence by the exporter was one of overvaluation with intent to claim drawback under section 75 of Customs Act, 1962 beyond that entitled. Though misdeclaration too, has been cited, there is nothing on record to evince that description or quantity was also called into question. It is apparent that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the appellant was not responsible for ascertainment of value or declaration of value. There is nothing on record to indicate that undue benefits were received by them either. The appellant was found to have contravened the obligation to advise compliance with Customs Act, 1962 and to report non-compliance. Value, being a contractual element, is convergence of intent in monetary terms; it can be limitless but, for the purposes of assessment, is limited to a conceptual framework that is rarely without controversy when disputed. An adjudicatory finding of overvaluation is based on certain parameters which has consequence in law without altering the contracted engagement - There is no evidence to substantiate the charge; moreover, this is a tertiary consequence of one of the other charges, viz., that of not having been in contact with the exporter to which failure to advice does not add for enhancing gravity of breach but merely conjoins. The appellant has been charged with failure to verify antecedents and identity of client as well as operations at the declared address. This is, probably, the only obligation that specifies identifiable action on the part of ‘customs broker’ and against which failure to measure up can be ascertained. It is on record that the appellant had not contacted the exporter at all. That is the most fundamental of obligations and breach thereof jeopardizes the reliability of the broker. The only breach that survives does not merit harshest of retribution - the revocation of licence under regulation 20 of Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2013 and the penalty imposed under regulation 22 of Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2013 is set aside - forfeiture of deposit is upheld - appeal allowed in part.
|