TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dependent authentic documents, data or information. It is seen that the charge made in the proceedings does not clearly bring out as to how the custom broker has failed in this regard - Any action by any employee in a personal capacity, not in transaction of business of the custom broker, cannot be held against the custom broker. Similar Regulation 11(e) is in respect of the transactions between the custom broker and his client. In the instant case the importer was not client of the Custom Broker and hence no charge under Regulation 11(e) can be substantiated. The charge under Regulation 11(i) relates to Customs Broker attempting to influence the officials of the Custom Station in any matter. In the instant case, there is no charge th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant firm was also recorded. In all these statements it transpired that Sh. Jaikishan B. Kotak, Bipin Pragi Kotak and Sh. Dinesh Ojha have actively participated in conspiring and organizing the smuggling in the aforementioned import at JNPT, Nhava Sheva. The offence report in the said case was issued on 10.11.2015 and the custom SCN was issued on 19.11.2016. 2.1 Thereafter proceedings against the appellant were initiated by suspension of their license on 14.06.2016 and the said suspension was confirmed on 31.07.2016. The proceedings culminated in the impugned order revoking the license of the appellant. 2.2 Ld. Counsel argued that no charge against the appellant can be made on the basis of the actions of Shri Jaikishan B. Kotak (son ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egulation 20 of the Custom Broker License Regulation 2013. 3. Ld. AR relies on the impugned order. He argued that Sh. D. Ojha was a G Card Holder of the appellant Custom Broker. He pointed out that the inquiry report clearly brings out the role of Sh. Dinesh Ojha in the entire smuggling activity. He thus argued that the impugned order needs to be upheld. He relied on the following judgments: K M Ganatra Co. 2016 (332) ELT 15 (SC) Worldwide Cargo Movers 2010 (253) ELT 190 (Bom) Sri Durga Shipping Agenceis 2014 (299) ELT 97 HB Cargo Services 2011 (268) ELT 448 (AP) 4. We have gone through rival submissions. We find that regulation 17(1), 17(9), 11(e) and 11(i) have been invoked. The said regulations read as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntic documents, data or information. It is seen that the charge made in the proceedings does not clearly bring out as to how the custom broker has failed in this regard. In absence of specific charge, the said allegation cannot be confirmed. Similarly, Regulation 17(9) excepts supervision of employees in the transaction of business. This charge can only be made in respect of cases where the imports are made through the Custom Broker themselves in transaction of business. Any action by any employee in a personal capacity, not in transaction of business of the custom broker, cannot be held against the custom broker. Similar Regulation 11(e) is in respect of the transactions between the custom broker and his client. In the instant case the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
