TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1093X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... And Shri Ashok K. Arya, Technical Member Shri Reghunatha Karnavar, Consultant For the Appellant Shri N. Jagdish, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg 1.1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned Order-in-Original dated 21.04.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Customs vide which the appellant s license as Custom Broker was revoked and whole of the security deposit was forfeited. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a holder of Custom Broker license which is valid up to 14.07.2024. Shri P. Ganapathy is a F card holder and authorized signatory of the appellant-firm. Shri O. Kassim has been an employee of the appellant and a G card holder. 1.2. Special intelligence and investigation branch of the Custom House Cochin booked a case involving evasion of customs duty by mis-declaration and undervaluation of imported goods and submission of fabricated documents by M/s. Riya Electronics, Malappuram and certain other importers. Preliminary investigation revealed that the Bills of Entry under investigation were filed by the appellant firm while the clearance of goods imported/under import were handled by one Shri N.S. Mahesh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the copy of enquiry report was not given to them as a result the appellant could not file the defence properly and it has prejudiced the appellant. This submission has no force because the appellant has furnished the explanation/clarification to the evidence in the enquiry report and the same is on record of this appeal. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Commissioner without considering the totality of the evidences and circumstances wrongly concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer regarding the allegations contained in para 11 of the show-cause notice that the appellant had violated Regulation 11(a) of the CBLR 2013 inasmuch as the appellant failed to obtain authorization from the importer before undertaking to perform customs related work for them. He also submitted that these authorizations were produced which has been acknowledged by the enquiry officer in para 28 of the enquiry report but the enquiry officer did not consider the same. He also submitted that the enquiry officer had also considered the case records of SIIB the copies of which were not supplied to the appellant. Further regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue. The CB in this case had violated rules and regulations stipulated in CBLR 2013. From the above, it appears that the nature of offence committed by CB deserves penalty and revocation of the license under Regulation 18 (b) and (c) of CBLR 2013. Further the learned Commissioner in the impugned order has discussed the material contradictions in the statements of CB Ganapathy, Kassim and Mahesh and finally has come to the conclusion in para 16 which is reproduced herein below: 16. From the above it emerges that CB had contravened provisions of Regulation 11(a), (b), (k) and (n) of CBLR 2013. Quantum of penalty in cases such as these are decided based on nature and gravity of the offence and the involvement of top management in the commission of the offence. In the instant case, it is seen that CB allowed Sri Mahesh, who was neither an authorized employee nor a person authorized to transact business with customs on behalf of CB, to take over and discharge all the duties and responsibilities vested on them, for a consideration of ₹ 500/- per document. Sri Mahesh used to bring business to CB in the form of imports, and got the documents filed using the office of CB, who in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of CHALR 2004. It is pertinent to mention para 28 and 29 in the case of Worldwide Cargo Movers where Hon ble Bombay High Court has observed as under: 28. In our view, the Tribunal has committed a grave error in interfering with the decision of a domestic authority. In a departmental proceeding one has to see whether the principles of natural justice are followed and the findings are justified from material on record. Once both these aspects are satisfied if an outsider Tribunal interferes, its findings and order will be improper and perverse which is what has happened in the present case. Similarly when one comes to the disciplinary measures, one must not lose sight of the fact that the appellant-Commissioner of Customs is responsible for happenings in the Customs area and for the discipline to be maintained over there. If he takes a decision necessary for that purpose, the Tribunal is not expected to interfere on the basis of its own notions of the difficulties likely to be faced by the CHA or his employees. The decision is best to be left to the disciplinary authority save in exceptional cases where it is shockingly disproportionate or mala fide. That is not the case her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
