TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned goods and therefore the question of violation of any of the above-quoted provisions of CHALR by the appellant simply does not arise. Thus, the ground on which the suspension of licence was confirmed is totally unsustainable. While the appellant has denied receipt of any payments in respect of the clearances of the impugned goods, we find that some of the exporters of the impugned goods had dealings with the appellant inasmuch as certain ledger accounts of the appellant show debit and credit entries in the name of some such exporters but that by itself would not make the appellant guilty of violation of CBLR, 2013, when it has already held above that in the present case CBLR, 2013 could not have been violated by the appellant w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Director of Him Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (HLPL) met all the exporters who had accompanied the middleman Mr. Amit Arora and one of the exporters also stated that Mr. Prakash Sharma determined the classification of the goods which was found to be incorrect. The investigation also revealed that employees of the appellant were handling clearance of the impugned export consignments at ICD, Patpatganj and these employees also had a role in manipulation of the market enquiry to ascertain market value thereof. Mr. Prakash Sharma, Director of the appellant in his statement admitted that he had not verified antecedents of any of the exporters and had not met the proprietors/directors of the exporting firms. He also admitted that the bills for clearance o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received by the appellant in respect of the exports which were investigated, (v) Being a sister concern of HLPL Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. is no ground to suspend appellant s licence for any wrong doing by HLPL Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and the Commissioner has not given any ground as to how the two are sister concerns and what is meant by sister concern, (vi) It is irrelevant that two of the Directors of M/s. HLPL Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. are also the directors of the appellant, (vii) Operating from the same address as that of M/s. HLPL Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. is of no consequence as each company is a separate legal person, (vii) Shri Prakash Sharma is not the customs broker and therefore his misconduct cannot be a ground for suspen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt in the case of Indowind Energy Ltd. v. Wescare (India) Ltd. Another [2010 (5) SCC 366] has held as under : - 17 Each company is separate and distinct legal entity and the mere fact that the two companies have common shareholders or common Board of Directors, will not make the two companies a single entity. Nor will the existence of common shareholders or Directors lead to an inference that one company will be bound by the acts of the other. As contended by the appellant, we find that the appellant had not filed any shipping bills in respect of the impugned goods, which were found to be mis-declared and overvalued and it was not the customs broker in respect of the said goods. Therefore, the question of violation of Regulatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that means) on account of the fact that two of their directors are common and operate from the same premises, it is not legally permissible to hold the appellant liable for the wrongdoings of M/s. HLPL Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. 7. C.B.E. C. vide its Circular No. 9/2010-Cus., dated 8-4-2010 has prescribed certain timelines relating to suspension of customs broker s licence. Para 7.2 of the said circular prescribing the time lines in this regard is reproduced below : - 7.2 In cases where immediate suspension action against a CHA is required to be taken by a Commissioner of Customs under regulation 20(2), there is no need for following the procedure prescribed under Regulation 22 since such an action is taken immediately and only in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order, it cannot be said that the Commissioner has not applied his mind or has not spelt out the circumstances which in its (i.e., Commissioner s) view warranted confirmation of suspension. 8. In the present case, the suspension was ordered and confirmed on the ground that the appellant had violated the provisions of Regulation 11(a), 11(d), 11(j), 11(m) and 11(n) of CBLR, 2013. These provisions are reproduced below - 11. Obligations of Customs Broker. - A Customs Broker shall - (a) obtain an authorisation from each of the companies, firms or individuals by whom he is for the time being employed as a Customs Broker and produce such authorisation whenever required by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
